[besson3c]

in the long run...

There is debate over whether government should compete against private insurance, and there are some other options being tossed about, but I'm starting to think that literally any one of these paths will ultimately be better for our economy in the long run.

I have a hard time seeing how the administrative overheads of a medical practice, the costs of personal bankruptcy in paying for medical bills, the cost for employers to provide health care, the cost of providing fewer jobs because of this, etc. are not greater than the benefits of having the owners and controllers of the current industry making the money they are making now. I can't see a good reason for any new business that can be spread out across other countries to setup base in the US when they would be expected to provide their employees crazy expensive health insurance.

I realize that coming up with actual numbers to support what I'm saying would be very difficult, but I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around how the fundamental *design* of something new wouldn't be a step up from what we have. It really does seem that what we have has really become quite horrendously bad, just in terms of costs and accessibility. This should have been addressed years ago.

I'm excited for something new. Like I said, it's hard to imagine something worse. I think it's also important to connect this with our economic problems. Any improvements upon our health care infrastructure as a whole will benefit our economy greatly. Our national health care expenses are, to my knowledge, our greatest liability.

I need to re-watch I.O.U.S.A.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I can't see a good reason for any new business that can be spread out across other countries to setup base in the US when they would be expected to provide their employees crazy expensive health insurance.

And yet they continue to do it. Huh.

[ctt1wbw]

I tell everyone who wants free health care run by the gubment. Join the military. See what kind of **** you have to do just to get an appointment for something.

[Shaddim]

At one time my dad went to the VA when he needed medical care, but the quality was so poor he decided that private insurance was a better value.

[Inspector2211]

Kill big healthcare at once. The government would be an unfair competitor since they can print their own money and artificially control the costs.

[Dork.]

The fundamental problem is that advances in Health Care technology are outstripping our ability to pay for it. (A secondary problem is that our whole notion of "health insurance" is broken, but I think that's a topic for another thread.)

There was a time when people didn't have the option of bankrupting themselves to pay for medical treatment: there was no treatment, and they just died after lingering for a while. We have amazing new medical technologies that are holding out new hope to countless people, but these new technologies are extremely expensive. We've had our market-driven economy come up with all these truly miraculous solutions, but the cost structure is all out of whack because most folks would pay any price to extend the healthy life of a loved one, and would expect the companies they pay for health insurance to have the same priorities.

A quick search yielded this post on a NY Times blog, which included this informative graph:



Grabbing a random graph from the Internet shouldn't be a substitute for serious research. But taking it at face value, it certainly seems like something is making Health Care in the US much more expensive than it should be. If we fix that discrepancy, we'll go a long way to at least making our problem no worse than in other countries....

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Grabbing a random graph from the Internet shouldn't be a substitute for serious research. But taking it at face value, it certainly seems like something is making Health Care in the US much more expensive than it should be. If we fix that discrepancy, we'll go a long way to at least making our problem no worse than in other countries....

When people pay out of their own pocket, they are more shrewd about their care. Third parties now pick up the tab for all, but .14 on every dollar of care given overall. Health care cost have increased as other means have come available to pick them up. Prior to Medicare and Medicaid (1965), health care expenditure was 6% of GDP, now it exceeds 16%. This, combined with over 50 regulations on the industry up to and including Employers' required to provide etc... all drive up the cost of healthcare because to the patient they are artificially funded. This enables us to seek out medical services for anything from restless leg syndrome to being subjected to the horrific, occasional bad day and puts us where we are today spending more on eating out and entertainment annually.

Healthcare crisis? Get the more than 18% already eligible for some form of government healthcare enrolled, get illegal immigrants out of the program with more effective immigration and border policy overall, end the ridiculously litigious practices rampant in the industry, and set up policy around personal health savings accounts. As bad as it is here in the US, it is the best worldwide of any country operating on the massive scope we do. The ideas we banter about here when it comes to "reform" under this Administration are those being abandoned by others who've tried them and failed. The only healthcare crisis we have in this country is the one we create for ourselves. Everyone else is covered.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: why is it that we spend far more per person than any other country in the world, and get less in terms of our average life expectancies? Why is it that even with millions of Americans uninsured, we are still spending over 16% of our GDP?

Forget government run health care for the moment, step one that we can agree on (I think) is do whatever it takes to drive down costs. What percentage of our costs are spent dealing with the insured and hospitals having to admit the insured to the ER and passing the costs off to others? What percentage of our costs are spent trying to pay off deductibles for hospital visits that cost way more than they should? I think that in addition to what you've described, we need to regulate artificial cost inflation. If you can get away with charging $10 for an aspirin at a hospital, why wouldn't you do that?

You seem to see regulation as part of the problem, but I see intelligent, well focused and appropriate regulation as a possible variable in making things better. The free market is great, but it operates best with appropriate and non-overreaching regulation.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The fundamental problem is that advances in Health Care technology are outstripping our ability to pay for it. (A secondary problem is that our whole notion of "health insurance" is broken, but I think that's a topic for another thread.)

There was a time when people didn't have the option of bankrupting themselves to pay for medical treatment: there was no treatment, and they just died after lingering for a while. We have amazing new medical technologies that are holding out new hope to countless people, but these new technologies are extremely expensive. We've had our market-driven economy come up with all these truly miraculous solutions, but the cost structure is all out of whack because most folks would pay any price to extend the healthy life of a loved one, and would expect the companies they pay for health insurance to have the same priorities.

This is an excellent point, and a big reason why private healthcare absolutely must remain legal in the United States - the majority of major medical and pharmaceutical advances and discoveries have happened in the United States because we can afford to do the R&D necessary to make these leaps.

It has its downsides - your average American is a pill addict, looking for a magic medication or surgery to fix all of life's little problems and annoyances.

It also has its upsides - as we research treatments and potential cures for worldwide epidemics like HIV and AIDS, and incurable diseases like various cancers, we provide hope for people - not just in the United States, either.

Healthcare has become so expensive for a variety of reasons, and the blame can be placed on everyone involved. Providers can charge just about whatever they want, because the services they provide can be a matter of life-or-death necessity. On the other hand, Americans are so obsessed with getting professional medical care for even the smallest problems, and turning to the pharmaceutical industry to fix every malady they have (or imagine they have), that the demand for healthcare has risen considerably - which keeps prices high. Insurance companies can barely afford to keep up, and end up being forced to raise rates and cut back benefits to stay in the black.

The problem with a nationalized healthcare program is that taxpayers like myself, who still maintain private health insurance, will be forced to contribute to the medical care expenses for people who, quite frankly, are more likely to have medical problems than the rest of us. Your average low-income to no-income white person is likely to be morbidly obese, which brings with it a slew of medical and psychological problems. Should the government be paying for that person's insulin when they become diabetic? What about gastric bypass surgery so that they can avoid the strict diet and exercise regimen a sensible person would undertake to shed the flab? Should the government be paying to care for a lung cancer patient who chose to smoke for decades?

It's one thing to provide the critical care necessary for, say, a child born with cerebral palsy or some form of mental retardation. It's quite another to provide medical services to people who are too lazy or stupid to take care of themselves, and end up with medical problems that could generally be avoided by being, you know...responsible.

It's been the fate of every other social program in the United States - the initial purpose is good-hearted, but the red tape and bureaucracy behind it allow freeloaders to slip through the cracks en masse, which eventually leads to huge tax increases to cover the extra financial burden, and major economical crises like we're facing now with the unavoidable fact that Social Security is going to go bankrupt before my generation (at the very least) sees a dime of the millions (billions?) of dollars we'll have contributed to the program by the time we all hit 65.

When you put the power in the hands of the government to choose who gets what service, concession, or benefit, things go to sh!t. It's just what happens. I'd much rather see the government provide incentives to people to sign up for tax-exempt HSAs, or to provide extra tax benefits to healthcare services that provide specifically to the low-income population. That way, the people who are actually experts in medical fields can decide who actually needs care and who is just trying to waste taxpayer money for the sake of being a freeloading douche.

[stumblinmike]

Pity the poor insurance companies! They can barely keep up! I would hate to have my broke-ass insurance executive living in squalor, while I send a monthly payment equivalent to a mortgage to pay for coverage I don't use, but absolutely must have. There IS plenty of blame to go around, but the insurance "industry" holds most of it.

[Big Mac]

Give the fools what they want. Higher taxes, higher deficits and debt, even poorer results.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Give the fools what they want. Higher taxes, higher deficits and debt, even ponys and rainbowsrer results.

This is far from a foregone conclusion, and again, I have no idea what you base this on... For all I know this could just be your feelings.

Higher taxes, yes, but higher deficits maybe not in the long run. We spend more than any other country on our health care system and get less out of it in terms of average life expectancies. I think perhaps you underestimate the costs of the administrative overhead of what we have now, the number of personal bankruptcies (and personal debt), and the difficulties for employers to offer comprehensive insurance. Reforming what we have may reduce our costs in these areas possibly enough to offset the costs of running a government run program as an option. We would have to sit down and look at the numbers.

As far as ponys and rainbowsrer results, has it ever occurred to you that your mantra of everything run by the government sucks may be because of people like yourself trying to reduce government to the point where it virtually destroys itself? Do you think that every government program everywhere in the world sucks, or just ours? Don't jump the gun and go off on a rant about how I'm promoting big government blah blah blah, because I'm not saying this, I'm simply challenging the notion that it is a foregone conclusion that the results will be ponys and rainbowsr.

A set of services are only as good as their leadership, funding, resources, and people that are involved. If you have good leadership, sufficient funding, resources, staff, there is nothing inherent about who signs their name on your paycheck that determines how the end results will be. For every government program that you use as an example as being woefully inefficient and inept, we could surely come up with similar private companies that are the same.

[besson3c]

You mods think that you are slowly driving me insane by substituting "ponys and rainbow" for the word "poor" in my posts, but you clowns cannot outsmart me. I'm fully aware that forum software allows for these sorts of substitutions and I didn't actually write those words, so the joke is on you guys!

HAH!

[BadKosh]

You'll hear all the Government Spokesmen from many countries that have socialized medicine tell you how great it is. Why don't you hear it from the citizens of those countries? I hear nothing but complaints and horror stories. Seems like the governments are lying. Kinda like the current 0bama admin.

[smacintush]

Besson3c, You can count on whatever program they try being far more expensive than they are saying now. How do I know? Because they always are.

They lie, exaggerate and skew statistics in their favor in order to gain popular support. Then over time the inject more and more money and create more and more bureaucracy in order to try to maintain the mess they created. Then what we will have is yet another broken and ridiculously expensive system that will be a political third rail that no one will have the balls to actually fix.

No, not every single government program sucks. But, you tell me of ANY federal program that in the long term has worked out like it was supposed to and/or cost anything even close to what they told us initially. Go for it.

[Doofy]

Test: Poorer. poorer.

Nope. Bess is actually insane.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As bad as it is here in the US, it is the best worldwide of any country operating on the massive scope we do.

Other countries operate on massive scales (scope is not an appropriate noun in this context) and manage to provide coverage to ALL their citizens for less cost-per-citizen. What makes the US so special that we are "the best worldwide" at providing health insurance to our citizens while not covering ALL our citizens?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

The problem with a nationalized healthcare program is that taxpayers like myself, who still maintain private health insurance, will be forced to contribute to the medical care expenses for people who, quite frankly, are more likely to have medical problems than the rest of us. Your average low-income to no-income white person is likely to be morbidly obese, which brings with it a slew of medical and psychological problems. Should the government be paying for that person's insulin when they become diabetic? What about gastric bypass surgery so that they can avoid the strict diet and exercise regimen a sensible person would undertake to shed the flab? Should the government be paying to care for a lung cancer patient who chose to smoke for decades?

It's one thing to provide the critical care necessary for, say, a child born with cerebral palsy or some form of mental retardation. It's quite another to provide medical services to people who are too lazy or stupid to take care of themselves, and end up with medical problems that could generally be avoided by being, you know...responsible.

Shif, do you want everyone in this country to have access to regular, preventative health- and dental-care EVEN IF that means you help pay for (through federal taxes) the health care of free-loaders and irresponsible individuals who don't take care of their own health?


I do. I want everyone in this country to have access to regular, preventative health- and dental-care EVEN IF that means I help pay for (through federal taxes) the health care of free-loaders and irresponsible individuals who don't take care of their own health.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

You'll hear all the Government Spokesmen from many countries that have socialized medicine tell you how great it is. Why don't you hear it from the citizens of those countries? I hear nothing but complaints and horror stories. Seems like the governments are lying. Kinda like the current 0bama admin.

Care to provide any examples? Do you have information on citizens of other countries and their complaints about the health-care system in their country?

And just to make it easier, for each country you mention could you quantify the number of "complaints and horror stories" you have heard as a percentage of the total population of said country? (e.g.: You have heard X "complaints and horror stories" about the health-care system in country Y which has a population of Z. So, the percentage of complaints you have heard about country Y would be equal to X/Z percentage of the population.) This quantification will help give us a better sense of just how widespread are these "complaints and horror stories" in the countries you identified.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

No, not every single government program sucks. But, you tell me of ANY federal program that in the long term has worked out like it was supposed to and/or cost anything even close to what they told us initially. Go for it.

What is your concern? That a nationalised health-care plan will lead to increased taxes? That's a given; Taxes will definitely increase if we implement a nationalised health-care plan.

The question is whether or not it is worth it to you to pay those increased taxes to insure that you, your family, your neighbors, and complete strangers in your community all have access to regular, preventative health- and dental-care. So, is it worth it to you to pay increased taxes to the federal government to to insure that you, your family, your neighbors, and complete strangers in your community all have access to regular, preventative health- and dental-care?

However, there are ways to increase spending on nationwide health care without necessarily increasing taxes right away.
What about reducing spending on our military to pay for health-care for all citizens?
What about gradually closing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so the government isn't spending money on subsidising home loans to pay for health-care for all citizens?
What about doing away with the federal student loan and loan-guarantee programs to pay for health-care for all citizens?
What about increasing the fees charged to companies in the extractive industries (mining, oil drilling, etc.) that use federally managed public lands to pay for health-care for all citizens?
What about eliminating off-shore tax havens and making US corporations pay their share in taxes to pay for health-care for all citizens?
What about implementing a basic flat-tax system for individuals and corporations with no deductions and no exemptions to pay for health-care for all citizens?
What about the legalisation and taxation of marijuana as a form of revenue to pay for health-care for all citizens?
What about privatising the National Parks system to pay for health-care for all citizens?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Shif, do you want everyone in this country to have access to regular, preventative health- and dental-care EVEN IF that means you help pay for (through federal taxes) the health care of free-loaders and irresponsible individuals who don't take care of their own health?


I do. I want everyone in this country to have access to regular, preventative health- and dental-care EVEN IF that means I help pay for (through federal taxes) the health care of free-loaders and irresponsible individuals who don't take care of their own health.

Regular, preventive care is not the same as providing free healthcare services across the board.

I'd be fine with a plan that provided the following:

Annual physical exams for children.
Annual pap smears for women over 18 and sexually active girls.
Annual colonoscopies for men over 50 (do women have to get those annually?).
Annual mammograms for women over 50.
Semiannual teeth cleanings and oral x-rays for all who qualify based on income.

When you start getting into things like providing scooters and wheelchairs and insulin and fillings and crowns and surgery and chemo, it gets a lot messier. I don't want to provide for the extensive healthcare needs of a morbidly obese fatass who simply refuses to take responsibility for his or her own life. I also don't want to pay for expensive dental work so that a meth addict can get fake teeth to replace the ones that have fallen out from drug use. The government shouldn't be paying for chemo for someone who contracted lung or oral cancer due to a lifelong addiction to nicotine, either. Gastric bypass surgery shouldn't be subsidized. These are medical problems that can quite easily be avoided through self-discipline and a sense of personal responsibility.

People in general are pretty healthy - we'd be healthier if we took more responsibility for our lives and exercised and ate a proper diet. Of course, poor people are least likely to eat real meals and far more likely to subsist on soda, chips, and a variety of fast food products. I'd rather invest in educating these people on how to stay healthy, rather than throwing money at them whenever they think they need to see a doctor for anything.

In the end, I think the migration toward some kind of nationalized health program is inevitable, so all I can really do is hope to God that private healthcare is kept legal. I'm not interested in being on a waiting list for basic medical care, thankyouverymuch.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Test: Poorer. poorer.

Nope. Bess is actually insane.

Laminar says it's happening to him too, so I'm not the only victim of this mod prank:

http://forums.macnn.com/61/feedback/...s/#post3853280

I guess the mods are afraid to mess around with you.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: why is it that we spend far more

Hi besson3c. I recall I asked you this recently, and maybe I just didn't see the answer, but I'd like to revisit it because I think it's important if you're going to keep emphasizing health care reform. How much are we supposed to be spending on health care? Here's the last I remember hearing from you on it:

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Skeleton: I'll have those numbers for you shortly. I'm about to do some serious research for my own benefit since I happen to be in the market now comparing costs with Anthem/Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Canada (which is an option for me), and I already have the numbers for what comprehensive insurance costs here (that was the $13,000/year for a family of two including the $900 deductible I reported on prior). I'll report what sorts of options are available, and sketch out some rough pros and cons in comparison to my moving to Canada. It should be an interesting comparison, and Canada ought to provide a rough baseline as to what insurance could cost. I'm happy to pay a premium up to a point for US based insurance though, so I'll factor that in to the equation.

I promise this research will be objective and open minded going into this. I am, after all, just looking out for myself here as far as my bottom line, so I have no intentions for political philosophy to enter the equation here.

Now I certainly didn't/don't expect you to itemize anything or put nearly as much work into it as you said you would in that quote, I'm just asking for a ballpark figure, because I simply can't imagine how you can think about how to achieve your goal before you even know what your goal is (the goal being that number).

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Hi besson3c. I recall I asked you this recently, and maybe I just didn't see the answer, but I'd like to revisit it because I think it's important if you're going to keep emphasizing health care reform. How much are we supposed to be spending on health care? Here's the last I remember hearing from you on it:

Now I certainly didn't/don't expect you to itemize anything or put nearly as much work into it as you said you would in that quote, I'm just asking for a ballpark figure, because I simply can't imagine how you can think about how to achieve your goal before you even know what your goal is (the goal being that number).

Okay, let's do this!

I'm going to compare the US to Canada... Not necessarily because I think that Canada should be used as some model, just because I happen to be Canadian, so it's what I know best. I think this says a lot:

Health care in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canadian per capita spending on health care in USD: $3,678
US per capita spending on health care: $6,714

Canadian life expectancy: 80.4
US life expectancy: 77.8

First of all, I see no reason why the US couldn't match or beat Canada in life expectancy with the edge they have in health treatments. Keep in mind that this per capita spending on health care in the US excludes all of the uninsured AFAIK, as the government doesn't pay for them, the hospitals do.

Therefore, I see no reason why the US could not lower their per capita spending at least $1000/person while the US would still maintain an edge. Is that edge worth nearly twice what Canadians pay? Does everybody need that edge? How is it that that edge yields lower life expectancies?

People point to US irresponsibility and people being fat asses and all that, but Canada's culture is similar enough that many of these problems are shared to some extent. I buy our addiction to fast food and all of that as a valid *factor*, but there is much that is wrong to produce these wildly different numbers.

Like I said, let's start off small. Why can't we reduce our per capita spending by at least $1000/person?

[besson3c]

Also, another important variable. Not everybody that has insurance in the US has comprehensive insurance. An insurance plan with a $10,000 deductible is hardly worth its name, in a way. Remember, just to put these numbers in context, that the $6700/person we are spending does not even guarantee each individual comprehensive insurance. This doesn't account for what Americans spend on paying down their deductibles either.

I say this in a relative sense, because dental and some other treatments are not covered under Medicare in Canada. I realize that the comprehensiveness is sort of a difficult variable to account for, as are things such as deductibles and eligibility.

Also, keep in mind that those are 2007 numbers too.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

ebuddy: why is it that we spend far more per person than any other country in the world, and get less in terms of our average life expectancies? Why is it that even with millions of Americans uninsured, we are still spending over 16% of our GDP?

These are good questions. It's a good thing we're pretending that we're not talking about nationalized health care because of course this would beg the question of why we spend more than any other country on our education system and rank 16th in Math and Science.

To your question; We spend far more per person than any other country in the world and get less in terms of our average life expectancy because the life expectancy figures you're basing this on have little to nothing to do with quality of health care in the US. CDC figures take into account fatal injury, non-natural causes of death such as motor vehicle accidents. Can better healthcare prevent fatal vehicle accidents? This is an important point besson because they are the leading cause of premature death in the US and many of these issues are byproducts of a prosperous economy. When fatal injuries (having absolutely nothing to do with the quality of health care) are removed from the equation, you'll be pleased to know that our life expectancy in the US is second to none.
Political Calculations: Natural Life Expectancy in the United States
cdc

Forget government run health care for the moment, step one that we can agree on (I think) is do whatever it takes to drive down costs.

I just got done telling you that we spend 14 cents on every dollar of coverage we receive and we're running to the doctor for restless leg syndrome. We can't agree here.

What percentage of our costs are spent dealing with the insured and hospitals having to admit the insured to the ER and passing the costs off to others? What percentage of our costs are spent trying to pay off deductibles for hospital visits that cost way more than they should?

How much does your alternative plan cost? I mean, the devil you don't know and all that...

I think that in addition to what you've described, we need to regulate artificial cost inflation. If you can get away with charging $10 for an aspirin at a hospital, why wouldn't you do that?

You have to establish what an aspirin is worth. As long as someone else is picking up the tab, they're going to charge you more. Why do you suppose the increase in college tuition is dwarfing the increasing cost of health insurance? Same problem.

You seem to see regulation as part of the problem, but I see intelligent, well focused and appropriate regulation as a possible variable in making things better. The free market is great, but it operates best with appropriate and non-overreaching regulation.

What are some good regulations? Why stop at aspirin? There are a great many things for which we could regulate the cost, why not all things?

[ebuddy]

besson: if healthcare is truly in a state of crisis, shouldn't we be spending less on eating out and entertainment? How about a smaller house, a used car? Basic phone service? Do we not have any responsibility in this at all?

Why are Switzerland, Canada, and the UK all increasingly privatizing their health care systems?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Other countries operate on massive scales (scope is not an appropriate noun in this context) and manage to provide coverage to ALL their citizens for less cost-per-citizen.

Scope; extent, purpose. The word was perfectly acceptable in context.

Secondly, "coverage" for all their citizens assumes that all can get the care they need, when they need it. Let the influx of patients from abroad attest to this.

Have you been unable to pay for coverage and been turned away from the US system? Are the 45 million uninsured just not as crafty as you? The health care "crisis" is a myth, plain and simple. While we're at it, what exactly is the expense to these other countries in terms of coverage for illegal immigrants? (coming to the US for, among other things, free health care)

What makes the US so special that we are "the best worldwide" at providing health insurance to our citizens while not covering ALL our citizens?

Because it is not a primary concern here as it is elsewhere. We can afford iPods, iPhones, multiple gaming systems, multiple cars, more house than we need, and spend more on eating out and entertainment. With a priority as low as healthcare seems to be in the US, it must be.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Have you been unable to pay for coverage and been turned away from the US system?

No. I have been lucky to not have that particular circumstance occur to me. But when I have had insurance I have not been able to get all the treatments I needed because my insurance would not cover it. (In this specific instance it was physical therapy for a knee injured playing in a recreational soccer league. I was paying $200/month for insurance--with my employer, the federal government, paying another $400/month--which was not sufficient for me to get doctor-recommended physical therapy.)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Are the 45 million uninsured just not as crafty as you?

Crafty?!? What are you talking about? If you are talking about the 45 million uninsured having emergency room service available to them for their medical needs I would argue that having people go to the emergency room to obtain basic, preventative health-care or non-emergency medical services* is NOT the best use of a finite resource.
*Should a person have to go to the emergency room because their kid stepped on a nail and just needs to see a doctor and get a tetanus shot?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The health care "crisis" is a myth, plain and simple.

Really, so every citizen in this country has access to regular preventative health- and dental-care and basic medical services? If not, then I would say that is a problem. And when the percentage of the citizenry that does not have access to regular preventative health- and dental-care and basic medical services equals 15% of this country's population then I would consider that a crisis.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

While we're at it, what exactly is the expense to these other countries in terms of coverage for illegal immigrants?

Which countries? Canada's policies regarding health-care for illegal immigrants is different from that of the various European countries which is different from that of Japan and South Korea.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

(coming to the US for, among other things, free health care)

Other than illegal immigrants coming to the United States to give birth to their children what other types of health-care do illegal immigrants have access to in this country? Perhaps you mean the system for the uninsured that says "go to the local emergency room for any and all medical needs"? Many emergency rooms are so burdened with providing basic medical services that illegals are able to sneak in and get care they otherwise should not get. Maybe if we had a system that covered every citizen and that left our emergency rooms for emergency cases it would be easier for our medical establishments to weed out the illegals and deny them service. (And yes, I am ALL FOR a nationalised health-care system in the US that denies medical care to non-citizens. Of course, I am also ALL FOR a unified national ID system that allows law enforcement to quickly identify non-citizens from citizens and allows law enforcement officials to detain non-citizens for immediate deportation.)

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What makes the US so special that we are "the best worldwide" at providing health insurance to our citizens while not covering ALL our citizens?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because it is not a primary concern here as it is elsewhere. We can afford iPods, iPhones, multiple gaming systems, multiple cars, more house than we need, and spend more on eating out and entertainment. With a priority as low as healthcare seems to be in the US, it must be.

This makes no sense. Am I reading/interpreting this wrong or are you really claiming that the US is "the best worldwide" at providing health care to our citizens by making national health-care a low priority? How can health-care in this country be "not a primary concern here as it is elsewhere" and 15% of our citizens not having access to health-care make the US the "best worldwide"? This makes no sense.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

No. I have been lucky to not have that particular circumstance occur to me. But when I have had insurance I have not been able to get all the treatments I needed because my insurance would not cover it. (In this specific instance it was physical therapy for a knee injured playing in a recreational soccer league. I was paying $200/month for insurance--with my employer, the federal government, paying another $400/month--which was not sufficient for me to get doctor-recommended physical therapy.)

That's odd because according to fepblue, the Federal Employee Program under the Standard Option you're covered for Physical Therapy; limited to 50 visits per calendar year. To receive preferred benefits, go to your preferred hospital. Your out-of-pocket expense will be less. Independent physical therapists are considered nonparticipating. If you choose to go to a physical therapist's office, your out-of-pocket expense will be more. Even under the Basic Option you're allowed 50 visits per calendar year. To receive benefits, go to your preferred hospital. If you choose to go to a physical therapist's office or a non-PPO provider, you are responsible for all of the charges.

Are you sure this wasn't covered or you just weren't aware? At least 18% of the 45 million uninsured in this country are also unaware that they're eligible for coverage.

Crafty?!? What are you talking about? If you are talking about the 45 million uninsured having emergency room service available to them for their medical needs I would argue that having people go to the emergency room to obtain basic, preventative health-care or non-emergency medical services* is NOT the best use of a finite resource.
*Should a person have to go to the emergency room because their kid stepped on a nail and just needs to see a doctor and get a tetanus shot?

Crafty?!? See above.

Time is of the essence. There's nothing wrong with going to emergency for a tetanus shot after stepping on a nail. Although, I'm still not sure where you're getting your information. A child not covered under SCHIP, will be covered under a family Medicaid plan. I've been there. I've used it. We didn't have to go to emergency. We went to a clinic like everyone else. My wife and I made $900/month combined. The problem has been acknowledged by those in the industry who know that the industry needs to do a better job of educating the less-advantaged on what help is available to them.

Really, so every citizen in this country has access to regular preventative health- and dental-care and basic medical services?

These are all matters not covered under a great deal of nationalized plans either, but in most cases including my own when my wife and I were at poverty level- dental care and basic medical services were available to us.

If not, then I would say that is a problem.

So... because it's not, there's no problem.

And when the percentage of the citizenry that does not have access to regular preventative health- and dental-care and basic medical services equals 15% of this country's population then I would consider that a crisis.

No, I maintain that the problem is at least 21% of the "45 million uninsured" are non-US citizens. They are placing a disproportionate burden on the system. Just because the Federal Government wants in on the insurance industry to a greater degree doesn't make it a good idea.

Which countries? Canada's policies regarding health-care for illegal immigrants is different from that of the various European countries which is different from that of Japan and South Korea.

What is it and what percentage of non-European citizens are getting care? What percentage of non-Canadian citizens are getting care?

Other than illegal immigrants coming to the United States to give birth to their children what other types of health-care do illegal immigrants have access to in this country? Perhaps you mean the system for the uninsured that says "go to the local emergency room for any and all medical needs"? Many emergency rooms are so burdened with providing basic medical services that illegals are able to sneak in and get care they otherwise should not get. Maybe if we had a system that covered every citizen and that left our emergency rooms for emergency cases it would be easier for our medical establishments to weed out the illegals and deny them service. (And yes, I am ALL FOR a nationalised health-care system in the US that denies medical care to non-citizens. Of course, I am also ALL FOR a unified national ID system that allows law enforcement to quickly identify non-citizens from citizens and allows law enforcement officials to detain non-citizens for immediate deportation.)

As long as human beings are in our country, they will get the care they need. If they have an emergency health requirement, those needs will be met. This is the right thing to do. An actual border policy that is enforced, is the better thing to do. The latest nationalized healthcare proposal is estimated at over 1 trillion dollars and still leaves 37 million uninsured. This is no solution. If you're going to indict a prior Administration for wasteful spending, deceit, corruption, and unprecedented attacks on civil liberty, it hardly makes sense to then advocate the transfer of something as profound as our nation's health care over to them.

This makes no sense. Am I reading/interpreting this wrong or are you really claiming that the US is "the best worldwide" at providing health care to our citizens by making national health-care a low priority? How can health-care in this country be "not a primary concern here as it is elsewhere" and 15% of our citizens not having access to health-care make the US the "best worldwide"? This makes no sense.

Couple of mistakes here, we're not talking about "15% of our citizens" as a significant portion of them are not US citizens. Again, with the average American spending more on eating out and entertainment than on healthcare, (which includes those at poverty level with at least two cars, cable or satellite television, at least two gaming systems, etc...) it hardly makes sense to cry foul on the "crisis" of the healthcare industry. It is only a crisis to those who have something to sell and to those who again, want something for nothing. (out of their pocket) I personally don't want to compromise the care for the remaining 85% of the country. The Federal government cannot afford to care more for you than you care for yourself.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I do. I want everyone in this country to have access to regular, preventative health- and dental-care EVEN IF that means I help pay for (through federal taxes) the health care of free-loaders and irresponsible individuals who don't take care of their own health.

In theory. In reality I can't get an NHS dentist. The system is seriously overloaded.

Do you want "British teeth"? 'Coz that's what you'll get.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

What about eliminating off-shore tax havens

How do you propose to do that? Invade them?

What do you propose to do when the companies using said tax havens (and that's all of them which provide your life essentials) double their end-user prices to cover their losses?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

How do you propose to do that? Invade them?

Make it virtually impossible for businesses or individual citizens to do business with tax havens. Isolate them financially and economically from the (somewhat) still lucrative financial markets. There are places in the Caribbean known to be off-shore havens. Forbid individuals with citizenship in those countries from having access to the US banking sector or secondary financial markets (private equity funds, investment banks, etc.) Forbid businesses chartered in those countries from doing business in the United States.

Originally Posted by Doofy 

What do you propose to do when the companies using said tax havens (and that's all of them which provide your life essentials) double their end-user prices to cover their losses?

Market forces will solve that problem. The company that insists on using tax havens to maximise profits instead of traditional business practices (making and selling a product that everyone wants) will find itself up against a company that uses traditional business practices and market forces (building a better widget for less than their competitor) to make a profit.


Of course, you already know (or should know, I have said it so often) that I am a flat-taxer. Every individual and every business pays x% off the top to the federal government of every dollar of income or revenue and the rest is theirs to keep (or be taxed at the discretion of the state government*). Their are no exemptions and no deductions. Every individual pays the same percentage on every source of income they have (regular employment, investment returns, inheritance, lottery winnings, selling items on e-Bay, selling a used Jeep to the bloke down the lane, etc.). Every business pays the same percentage on every source of revenue and cannot deduct for anything (no deductions for capital expenses, amortization costs, investment losses, etc.). And every business selling a product in the US would need to have a US-based headquarters so the profits made in this country could be taxed at this country's rates. And the opposite applies as well. US-based countries with business in foreign markets would need to have those foreign revenues taxed at the US rate as well or have those foreign products sold by a financially and legally independent entity separate to that country. (This would be so a US-based company could not route all its revenues through a foreign subsidiary to avoid paying US taxes. So, GM of North America could not a) avoid paying taxes on the revenue earned by GM of Europe nor could GM of North America route its north american revenues through another nation to avid paying taxes on its US-earned revenue.)


*If such a plan were implemented I think you would start to see individual US states become much more competitive in their taxing schemes.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To your question; We spend far more per person than any other country in the world and get less in terms of our average life expectancy because the life expectancy figures you're basing this on have little to nothing to do with quality of health care in the US. CDC figures take into account fatal injury, non-natural causes of death such as motor vehicle accidents. Can better healthcare prevent fatal vehicle accidents? This is an important point besson because they are the leading cause of premature death in the US and many of these issues are byproducts of a prosperous economy. When fatal injuries (having absolutely nothing to do with the quality of health care) are removed from the equation, you'll be pleased to know that our life expectancy in the US is second to none.
Political Calculations: Natural Life Expectancy in the United States

I agree with your argument, but that link makes no sense. How can the life expectancy (for most countries other than the US) go LOWER when you account for fatal injuries? If it weren't for other countries' numbers being mysteriously lowered by accounting for fatal injuries, they would still be higher than both US numbers. Unless other countries' fatal accidents only occur at age 77 and above, those numbers have got to be bogus.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

In theory. In reality I can't get an NHS dentist. The system is seriously overloaded.

Do you want "British teeth"? 'Coz that's what you'll get.

I would say the problem on your side of the pond is that the government has the medical professionals be employees of the state. I don't want that here in the US. I want medical professionals to be independent of the state for their employment but dependent on the state for their compensation that occurs via insurance. So, you will have doctors and dentists who run their own business or work for a hospital and the payments for services rendered (payments that are made via insurance) will be regulated by government policy. This scheme in no way would prevent medical professionals from choosing to accept cash-only patients. In fact, medical professionals who so desired could completely opt out of the government-regulated insurance business and work on a cash-only basis if they so desired. But if they are going to accept medical insurance payments I want that system of insurance payments to be regulated by the government.*


*In the US the federal government has a system in place for paying its employees based on different costs of living in different parts of the country. A similar expense allocation system could be setup by the government for medical procedures. So, a basic office visit for an annual checkup would allocate $X in compensation in say Kansas and would allocate $2X in compensation in say NYC or Los Angeles. This way, compensation would be made based on the cost of providing services in that area.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

I want medical professionals to be independent of the state for their employment but dependent on the state for their compensation that occurs via insurance. So, you will have doctors and dentists who run their own business or work for a hospital and the payments for services rendered (payments that are made via insurance) will be regulated by government policy. This scheme in no way would prevent medical professionals from choosing to accept cash-only patients. In fact, medical professionals who so desired could completely opt out of the government-regulated insurance business and work on a cash-only basis if they so desired. But if they are going to accept medical insurance payments I want that system of insurance payments to be regulated by the government.*

You've just described exactly what happens here. Dentists own their own business but are compensated by the government for NHS work.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Make it virtually impossible for businesses or individual citizens to do business with tax havens.

You have this already. See "controlled foreign corporation" and "qualified intermediary" legislation.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Forbid businesses chartered in those countries from doing business in the United States.

Most companies charted in tax havens wouldn't want to do business with the US anyway. Seriously, anyone with the sense to structure their business in an offshore manner probably has the sense to avoid the IRS like the plague - which means not doing business with the US.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Market forces will solve that problem. The company that insists on using tax havens to maximise profits instead of traditional business practices (making and selling a product that everyone wants) will find itself up against a company that uses traditional business practices and market forces (building a better widget for less than their competitor) to make a profit.

Oh come on. You know as well as I do that market forces will go for the cheapest. That's why everything we own these days was made in China.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Of course, you already know (or should know, I have said it so often) that I am a flat-taxer. Every individual and every business pays x% off the top to the federal government of every dollar of income or revenue and the rest is theirs to keep (or be taxed at the discretion of the state government*). Their are no exemptions and no deductions. Every individual pays the same percentage on every source of income they have (regular employment, investment returns, inheritance, lottery winnings, selling items on e-Bay, selling a used Jeep to the bloke down the lane, etc.). Every business pays the same percentage on every source of revenue and cannot deduct for anything (no deductions for capital expenses, amortization costs, investment losses, etc.). And every business selling a product in the US would need to have a US-based headquarters so the profits made in this country could be taxed at this country's rates. And the opposite applies as well.

You know as well as I do that this is never going to happen. The less fortunate like their deductions and handouts too much.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

US-based countries with business in foreign markets would need to have those foreign revenues taxed at the US rate as well or have those foreign products sold by a financially and legally independent entity separate to that country. (This would be so a US-based company could not route all its revenues through a foreign subsidiary to avoid paying US taxes. So, GM of North America could not a) avoid paying taxes on the revenue earned by GM of Europe nor could GM of North America route its north american revenues through another nation to avid paying taxes on its US-earned revenue.)

IIRC, this is how things are already. The "lost taxes" that you see Levin going on about are the IRS not getting their cut from the separate legal entities outside the US.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That's odd because according to fepblue, the Federal Employee Program under the Standard Option you're covered for Physical Therapy; limited to 50 visits per calendar year. To receive preferred benefits, go to your preferred hospital. Your out-of-pocket expense will be less. Independent physical therapists are considered nonparticipating. If you choose to go to a physical therapist's office, your out-of-pocket expense will be more. Even under the Basic Option you're allowed 50 visits per calendar year. To receive benefits, go to your preferred hospital. If you choose to go to a physical therapist's office or a non-PPO provider, you are responsible for all of the charges.

Are you sure this wasn't covered or you just weren't aware? At least 18% of the 45 million uninsured in this country are also unaware that they're eligible for coverage.

Umm, you do realise there is more than one insurance policy available to employees of the federal government? And yes, I am sure it wasn't covered by the plan I was on. I had very good coverage in other areas of medical care (flexibility of doctors to choose from, low per-visit co-pays, low emergency room co-pays, low hospitalisation co-pays) I simply had no coverage for physical therapy.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Time is of the essence. There's nothing wrong with going to emergency for a tetanus shot after stepping on a nail. Although, I'm still not sure where you're getting your information. A child not covered under SCHIP, will be covered under a family Medicaid plan. I've been there. I've used it. We didn't have to go to emergency. We went to a clinic like everyone else. My wife and I made $900/month combined. The problem has been acknowledged by those in the industry who know that the industry needs to do a better job of educating the less-advantaged on what help is available to them.

You say time is of the essence and going to an emergency room is OK for a basic non-life-threatening accident and then you argue that you didn't have to go do an emergency room to receive medical care. So, which is it?

And as for options like SCHIP and Medicaid, why not combine those separate government-run programs with separate administrative costs into one single government-run program that can guarantee minimum basics of care while reducing costs? Instead of having Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, and various other government-funded health insurance programs at the state level why not have one single uniform program at the federal level and reduce the costs of duplicate agencies and duplicate administration fees?

Why is having a hodge-podge of service providers based on age of patient, region, or ability to pay a better way to provide health-care resources to all citizens than through a single unified nation-wide system? As big and as unwieldly as it would likely be, do you really think a single nation-wide insurance system run by the federal government--remember, we are talking about the US here--would be more expensive than running Medicaid and Medicare, SCHIP, and other programs separately?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

These are all matters not covered under a great deal of nationalized plans either, but in most cases including my own when my wife and I were at poverty level- dental care and basic medical services were available to us.

So, which government entity guaranteed you would have access to basic preventative health- and dental-care and provided said care to you and your wife? (And I used the qualifier government for a reason. I want basic preventative health- and dental-care available to all citizens and not be something they have to scrounge around to get from other providers like say religious organizations. I don't want private non-profits to have to be in the business of providing health-care to US citizens because the government can't provide it for them.)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, I maintain that the problem is at least 21% of the "45 million uninsured" are non-US citizens. They are placing a disproportionate burden on the system.

Like I said, lets deny health-care to non citizens. I have no problem with that whatsoever. And say a illegal immigrant comes to an emergency room with a life-threatening health problem, let them get the care they need and then be deported after their recovery.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Just because the Federal Government wants in on the insurance industry to a greater degree doesn't make it a good idea.

Correct. What makes it a good idea is that their would exist one single government agency that guarantees citizens get access to regular basic preventative health- and dental-care and that this basic level of services is not determined by how profitable it is or is not to provide. I have not argued for the elimination of health insurance companies. I have argued for a single government agency that guarantees citizens get access to regular, basic preventative health- and dental-care regardless of their ability to pay for such services. Health insurance companies can still exist side-by-side with a government-run plan, they would simply lose out on any profit to be made from providing regular, basic preventative health- and dental-care to citizens,. There would still be plenty of other profit to be had from offering insurance on emergency services, elective surgeries, cosmetic surgeries, experimental procedures, long-term care services (dialysis, chemotherapy, insulin, etc.).

I asked this question regarding your claims about the circumstances in other countries where illegals get access to the health services of the country in which they life illegally

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

Which countries? Canada's policies regarding health-care for illegal immigrants is different from that of the various European countries which is different from that of Japan and South Korea.

and you reply with another question (below) completely un-related to the question.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What is it and what percentage of non-European citizens are getting care? What percentage of non-Canadian citizens are getting care?

So, do you have figures on illegals in foreign countries and if/how they get access to their host country's health-care services?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

As long as human beings are in our country, they will get the care they need. If they have an emergency health requirement, those needs will be met. This is the right thing to do.

Absolutely, And when an illegal immigrant comes to an emergency room with a life-threatening emergency, they should get the care they need, allowed to recover, and then be deported.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

An actual border policy that is enforced, is the better thing to do.

This is half right. We need a stronger border policy along with better enforcement and more stringent punishment for those who hire illegals* along with procedures that allow for a more rapid deportation process.
*I think there should be a tiered approach to punishing those who hire illegals. You get caught once you pay $1,000. You get caught a second time you pay $10,000. You get caught a third time you go to jail. (With "you" being the person doing the hiring. It doesn't matter whether you are someone looking for some guys to mow your lawn or looking for a crew of workers to pick your crops or work on a job site building houses.)

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The latest nationalized healthcare proposal is estimated at over 1 trillion dollars and still leaves 37 million uninsured. This is no solution.

Correct. This is no solution because it is not a true unified, nationalised government-run plan to provide regular, basic preventative health- and dental-care to all US citizens. It is a half-assed attempt to try and cover more citizens without making it look like the whole health-care industry is being nationalised. The only workable solution is to create a new agency that replaces Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP et al with the "FedCare" program that provides regular, basic preventative health- and dental-care to all US citizens and allows those citizens to obtain other medical services through secondary insurance plans or cash-based purchases. The solution I propose would eliminate the private insurance market for regular, basic preventative health- and dental-care and leave private insurance companies to compete among secondary medical services, long-term care services, and elective services.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If you're going to indict a prior Administration for wasteful spending, deceit, corruption, and unprecedented attacks on civil liberty, it hardly makes sense to then advocate the transfer of something as profound as our nation's health care over to them.

Umm, what are you talking about--Where I have mentioned in this thread the previous Administration--and how does this relate to the topic at hand?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Couple of mistakes here, we're not talking about "15% of our citizens" as a significant portion of them are not US citizens.

Any facts or figures to support this claim?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, with the average American spending more on eating out and entertainment than on healthcare, (which includes those at poverty level with at least two cars, cable or satellite television, at least two gaming systems, etc...) it hardly makes sense to cry foul on the "crisis" of the healthcare industry. It is only a crisis to those who have something to sell and to those who again, want something for nothing.

There are already plenty of people getting something for nothing with our current system (usually with the cost for the "nothing" being borne by hospitals who provide regular medical services in emergency rooms to people not having medical emergencies and with no regular insurance). Any proposed new system will still have some people getting something for nothing.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I personally don't want to compromise the care for the remaining 85% of the country. The Federal government cannot afford to care more for you than you care for yourself.

I guess that's where you and I differ. I want ALL citizens to have access to regular, basic preventative health- and dental-care whether or not they "deserve" it by choosing to care for themselves in the most health-appropriate way possible.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

You've just described exactly what happens here. Dentists own their own business but are compensated by the government for NHS work.

And why is it that you can't get in to see a dentist, then?

Are there two few dentists?
Is there no option for dentists to offer cash-based services outside of the NHS?
Are dentists required to take every NHS patient who comes to them?


Where in the chain of dental resource allocation is the problem?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

And why is it that you can't get in to see a dentist, then?
Are there two few dentists?

I believe there's too few "slots" for NHS patients.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Is there no option for dentists to offer cash-based services outside of the NHS?

Yes. This is how I get sorted - I pay cash.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Are dentists required to take every NHS patient who comes to them?

Up until a point, I believe (i.e. up until their "slots" have been filled). So, dentist says "I'll do NHS"... ...government replies "OK, so you have 5,000 slots to fill". Trouble is, there's 10,000 slots needed.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Where in the chain of dental resource allocation is the problem?

Have a guess. Same place most problems come from.

To be honest, I believe that the whole NHS is just about to collapse in on itself. I'm hearing rumours that purchase orders for essential consumables (i.e. fluids for path lab machines) aren't being signed because there's no cash.

[G Barnett]

Posted this in the thread that sorta led to this one being started, and I guess it got missed over there AND it seems more suited to this one anyway, so here it is, again and with feeling.

I've somewhat recently come of the opinion that one of the biggest things we could do to fix our healthcare situation is to legislatively revert the insurance business back to the way it started -- 100% non-profit.

After all, they were at first co-ops where people pooled money to cover healthcare for a larger group than ordinarily could be handled at one time individually, due to everyone's varying medical needs. Everything that came in went out as medical payments or was held specifically for medical payments.

Kill the for-profit insurance companies and make them put 100% of every premium (minus salaries for the employees, of course) right back into the system. As non-profit entities they won't have shareholders to answer to, nor any need to chase and try to generate ever-escalating revenue returns.

They'd still be private insurers, and would be able to run tax-free due to their non-profit status.

[BadKosh]

I guess next, the Libs wil say health care is a RIGHT, Like abortion...It's IN THE CONSTITUTION.... or somesuch BS.

[besson3c]

BadKosh: thanks for shitting in the thread with your personal feelings.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I agree with your argument, but that link makes no sense. How can the life expectancy (for most countries other than the US) go LOWER when you account for fatal injuries? If it weren't for other countries' numbers being mysteriously lowered by accounting for fatal injuries, they would still be higher than both US numbers. Unless other countries' fatal accidents only occur at age 77 and above, those numbers have got to be bogus.

This is a good point. I looked at the actual study and that didn't shed much more light on the matter unfortunately. They're using an actual mean/standardized mean as a ratio and there's got to be a third figure being used against the two given, but without the raw data it's hard to determine what that is. I'm an analyst Jim, not a statistician! What you do see is the differences between the actual mean (with fatal injuries) and the standardized mean (without fatal injuries) is exponentially more stark for the US than the other OECD countries.

Stossel probably puts this much better than I, but the argument goes like this;
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.

Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.

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.

It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.

The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.

[BadKosh]

Besson - I'm sorry, your 'opinions stated as fact' required such action.

Do you think it would be cheaper to remove the 35 million Illegals from the country than to hand out health care to them?

[Big Mac]

How health reform will help our economy down the shat hole faster

I really don't understand how people think the federal government, which runs a bankrupting Socialized medicine scheme called Medicare, can possibly do anything other than run health care for the rest of the population into the ground through these "reform" efforts. But whatever.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Before we allow the fed to go anywhere near our healthcare system or anything else, why don't they first prove to us they can 'reform' what's already on their plate?

Let's see Federal Government budget reform, before any healthcare reform. That means, the budget on track and in order, with no deficit spending -either current, or projected- with a pay-down of the current debt schedule, and all of this in effect for at least a decade.

Let's see Medicare reform.

Let's see Social Security reform.

Let's see what all of the above does to "help our economy".

Let's determine the Federal Government's credit-worthiness of 'reform' based on it's handling of the above. If they're such good 'reformers', we the people should see proof of it before handing them anything else to supposedly 'reform'.

[Big Mac]

That would be the sensible thing to do, which means it would conflict with the Socialist agenda now running the country.

[Big Mac]

Watching the press conference on right now, I will say that President Obama is a good spokesman for his health care reform agenda. I give him a lot of credit for being very upfront about the financial untenability of Medicare and Medicad, although a lot of that credit gets annulled when you consider that many are proposing Medicare-for-all. If you're prepared to believe his claims, what he proposes sounds great. If he gets his agenda through and it works out even half as well as he claims it should, then I'll be the first to apologize for being such a harsh critic.

Of course, I really don't think it can work. I also think it's strange that for all the rhetoric, the president has not submitted his own health care reform bills to Congress as a basis for debate.

"It's not surprising that we missed the mark in terms of where unemployment was going to go," he just said regarding the Stimulus. He says he doesn't have a crystal ball (anymore), since he just got those earlier it thrown back at him by the reporter asking the question. I can see him saying exactly the same thing about health care reform toward the end of his first term.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Besson - I'm sorry, your 'opinions stated as fact' required such action.

Do you think it would be cheaper to remove the 35 million Illegals from the country than to hand out health care to them?

This is a leading question, and you framing the debate against an enemy which doesn't exist. Nobody would argue this, the debate simply involves what to do with the illegals, the logistics of finding and dealing with them all, and the practicality of deporting all of them (practicality in terms of logistics as well as the effect on our economy).