News Health Care Reform - almost a done deal? DONE

[Angry Citizen]

If you want to know about quality health care, take a detailed look as I suggested above, at survival rates for cancer, heart disease, i.e. what happens to you if you actually get sick and see a doctor. You'll find most often the best place to be is in the US.

These statistics ignore the fact that the United States is known to have more specialists in these kinds of fields. If the United States' health care was so good, its average life span would be at or near the top spot, right? It's not.

Sure, other things could be affecting the statistic. But what? Average life span is a pretty huge indicator of public health, because it is a broad view of health that ignores focused studies on certain diseases. If the summary of American health care is, "We can treat your really bad diseases pretty darn well, but you're still not likely to outlive a Japanese or Norwegian", then American health care needs to change regardless.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, in place of. Auto-enrollment is in Ryan's bill for the same reason the mandate is in other bills: to achieve near-universal coverage and avoid adverse selection issues. They are two mechanisms with the same goal--getting as many people into the system as possible.

So? It is nonsensical to cite Ryan's auto-enrolment as an example of a Republican idea in the current Democratic bill. One might as well say the Republicans and Democrats both want 'good' things and that therefore all their particular methods for getting there are pretty much the same.

 

[calculusrocks]

Apparently this Canadian socialist was not so rooted in http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h0QC7bditrEb3wYz_6_b-gsGGDxA" as to get his heart surgery in the Canadian socialist system. If the US switches from mixed economy (gov't built HMOs in the 1970s) to total socialization the health care, where are Canadian politicians going to go for their health care?

 

[mheslep]

These statistics ignore the fact that the United States is known to have more specialists in these kinds of fields. If the United States' health care was so good, its average life span would be at or near the top spot, right? It's not.

Sure, other things could be affecting the statistic. But what?

Diet. Crime. Average driving distance. Gene pool. If one controls life span for these causes of death, the US is close to or at the the top. For infant mortality, the US difference is about 0.6 deaths out of a 1000 from the top, if you believe the infant death rates are measured the same way everywhere.

If the summary of American health care is, "We can treat your really bad diseases pretty darn well, but you're still not likely to outlive a Japanese or Norwegian", then American health care needs to change regardless.

The US health care system does need to change, but I advocate that along the way we not screw up the fact that we do indeed treat 'diseases pretty darn well'

 

[mheslep]

Oh, HIE has strong bipartisan support (even the red states are gobbling up HIE Cooperative grants to build functioning HIEs in their states). But with these Republicans, that rarely translates into votes.

I find this line so tiresome. Some $850 billion (the stimulus bill) of our money is taken by force and spent. But since we may have vociferously opposed its authorization, it is somehow not appropriate to get in line and take our own money back. Or if we do, that demonstrates we really supported the idea all along and were just acting out of politics. Please.

 

[hamster143]

Diet. Crime. Average driving distance. Gene pool. If one controls life span for these causes of death, the US is close to or at the the top. For infant mortality, the US is about 0.6 deaths out of a 1000 from the top, if you believe the death rates are measured the same.

Yes, there was that famous article that claimed that crime and accidents accounted for most of the difference in life expectancies between the US and OECD ... unfortunately, it turned out to be fake. As you can easily calculate by yourself, crime effectively reduces the US life expectancy by something like 0.4 years compared to virtually crime-less countries like Japan. If you also account for traffic accidents, you can probably explain away some more. The US is 1 year behind UK/Germany, 2 years behind New Zealand & Italy, 4 years behind Iceland and Japan.

I find it doubtful that the US has the worst dietary habits of all major countries. New Zealand has worse gene pool than the US (as recently as 100 years ago, it was basically populated by cannibal natives and convicts). Iceland has a horrible climate, but people manage to live quite long over there.

Smoking is an important contributor to premature death, but it turns out that Americans smoke substantially less than, say, Japanese or Greeks.

The US infant mortality is twice that of Iceland or Japan, 25% higher than in New Zealand or Italy.

 

[calculusrocks]

hamster, do you have any sources at all? If so, what is your point?

 

[hamster143]

hamster, do you have any sources at all? If so, what is your point?

My source is Wikipedia. My point is that the claim that "If one controls life span for these causes of death, the US is close to or at the the top" is inaccurate. In fact, the US does have one of the lowest life expectancies and highest infant mortalities in the developed world. So, we do NOT treat 'diseases pretty darn well', and the worry that we might somehow "break" our treasured healthcare system by trying to set up universal healthcare may be overblown.

 

[calculusrocks]

My source is Wikipedia. My point is that the claim that "If one controls life span for these causes of death, the US is close to or at the the top" is inaccurate. In fact, the US does have one of the lowest life expectancies and highest infant mortalities in the developed world. So, we do NOT treat 'diseases pretty darn well', and the worry that we might somehow "break" our treasured healthcare system by trying to set up universal healthcare may be overblown.

Great, then you can provide a link to it.

Well, when democrat politicians start going to Iceland, or wherever to get their critical treatments, then I'll see your point.

 

[hamster143]

Great, then you can provide a link to it.

Well, when democrat politicians start going to Iceland, or wherever to get their critical treatments, then I'll see your point.

Link to which part?

Would it be adequate if I provided links that showed that Sarah Palin's family went to Canada to get medical treatment?

Look, I have no doubt that the system we have here in the country is ideal for the wealthiest 1% (including most democrat and republican politicians). If your money is, for all intents and purposes, unlimited, you can get very good healthcare and you don't need to go to Canada or anywhere else.

Unfortunately, I'm not in the top 1% and probably neither are you, or most Americans on this forum.

 

[WhoWee]

Link to which part?

Would it be adequate if I provided links that showed that Sarah Palin's family went to Canada to get medical treatment?

Please do - and don't forget to explain the circumstances.

 

[calculusrocks]

Please do - and don't forget to explain the circumstances.

Didn't know it'd take more than a couple hours to use wikipedia.

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html

Referring to when she was a child:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care -- admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada's single-payer system.

"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada," Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"

 

[calculusrocks]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html

Referring to when she was a child:

Huff. Post huh? Gee, I'm a little skeptical.

 

[calculusrocks]

So even taking it at face value, did she go to Canada for critical treatments such as heart surgery? Like my original question asked?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Huff. Post huh? Gee, I'm a little skeptical.

Seriously. Then why don't you look on google and find out yourself? This isn't hard. Just search for 'sarah palin went to Canada for healthcare'

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000152-503544.html
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/03/sarah-palin-canadian-health-care.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/7409555/Sarah-Palins-family-sought-health-care-in-Canada.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/palin-says-she-used-canadian-h.html
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/03/08/palin_went_to_canada_for_health_care.html

So even taking it at face value, did she go to Canada for critical treatments such as heart surgery? Like my original question asked?

When she was a kid, the nearest city was a Canadian city, so when they had health issues they went there for health care. She specifically cites when her brother burned his ankle and they had to rush him onto a train that was going to Canada.

This is an example of how a more average American family had better access to health care from the Canadian system than the American system

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

...
When she was a kid, the nearest city was a Canadian city, so when they had health issues they went there for health care. She specifically cites when her brother burned his ankle and they had to rush him onto a train that was going to Canada.

This is an example of how a more average American family had better access to health care from the Canadian system than the American system

How about the fact that more then 10 min without oxygen brain damage is very likely and irreversible [218]. Also that if her brother was 5 or younger, or the burn was a critical/moderate burn the risk of Shock is incredibly high [715-718]. Given these two facts the decision to transport across the border to the nearest hospital facilities was the best idea and most logical. Also even ALS services are not as good as getting someone to an ER. Paramedics are trained in stabilization, not in treatment [4-5]. Finlay when the option arises to drive X or Y amounts and X is much greater than Y you goto Y, even if it is across the Canadian border.

Information came from:
Emergency Care and treatment of the sick and injured. Ninth edition. Series Editor, Andrew N. Pollak, MD, FAAOS. Copyright 2005.

 

[Al68]

The Republican party has made its platform into the "Party of No".

Too little too late. They should have been shouting no to these kinds of attacks on liberty much louder, and much more consistently.

Republicans are the ones I blame for this. Blaming Democrats is like blaming a wolf for eating a sheep instead of blaming the shepherd for sleeping on the job.

I may be a libertarian, but I'm not so married to my ideology that I cannot make an exception.

Your position on this issue is anti-libertarian, as you know. Your positions on other issues are irrelevant to this thread.

As far the implication that anyone should be ashamed of being "married" to libertarianism, that's just silly. Libertarianism is more like a best friend with benefits. :!)

 

[Al68]

That is hardly fallacious. Countries with higher levels of centralized, governmental control of health care tend to have longer average lifespans and lower rates of infant mortality. I am eager to see how this correlation does not imply causation.

Google "logical fallacies". This is one of the most famous ones in history, that a correlation like this implies a causal relationship.

Socialist policies are not socialism.

LOL. Yep, that's why you called them socialist policies. Because they're nothing like socialism. Gotcha.

 

[calculusrocks]

Too little too late. They should have been shouting no to these kinds of attacks on liberty much louder, and much more consistently.

Republicans are the ones I blame for this. Blaming Democrats is like blaming a wolf for eating a sheep instead of blaming the shepherd for sleeping on the job.Your position on this issue is anti-libertarian, as you know. Your positions on other issues are irrelevant to this thread.

As far the implication that anyone should be ashamed of being "married" to libertarianism, that's just silly. Libertarianism is more like a best friend with benefits. :!)

Republicans hasn't exactly done very much for the liberty conscious. I'm shocked they were even able to mount a filibuster. That being said, I don't know why republicans are what come up in this debate. The democrats own congress. They own the presidency. They had 60 senators, filibuster proof majority, and yet they still blame republicans for not helping democrats trample over individual liberty.

 

[WhoWee]

This is an example of how a more average American family had better access to health care from the Canadian system than the American system

Actually, this is an example of how a system can be abused by illegals.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I won't be able to tune in today so the anticipation will be killing me, but it looks like the Dems have the votes. YAY!

Responding to Russ's comments earlier regaring amendments, as I told him in person, no doubt we will be tweeking this for decades; and we would be no matter what passes. What matters most is that after 70 years of trying, we finally get over the hump.

This is truly an historic day.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Regarding popular opposition, when people discover that they no longer have lifetime caps; when their insurance can't be canceled because they got sick or pregnant; when they can't be refused insurance due to a preexisting condition, just as was true with the prescription drug plan, all of the Republican-created furor will fade away. Americans want what is in this bill.

I was struck by objections that while this may reduce the deficit, the overall cost of health care will increase. Given that 30 million people who have no insurance will now have coverage, of course it will cost more. The complaint seems to be that 30 million people should have no coverage if they can't afford it; that we have a $trillion to fight wars but not to protect American citizens from a corrupt, greedy, and inhumane insurance system. And perhaps that is what sours me on the Republicans more than anything: We always seem to have the money for wars but not for Americans.

Btw, college students, you will now be able to stay on your parent's policy until you are 26 years of age.

 

[WhoWee]

Regarding popular opposition, when people discover that they no longer have lifetime caps; when their insurance can't be canceled because they got sick or pregnant; when they can't be refused insurance due to a preexisting condition, just as was true with the prescription drug plan, all of the Republican-created furor will fade away. Americans want what is in this bill.

I was struck by objections that while this may reduce the deficit, the overall cost of health care will increase. Given that 30 million people who have no insurance will now have coverage, of course it will cost more. The complaint seems to be that 30 million people should have no coverage if they can't afford it; that we have a $trillion to fight wars but not to protect American citizens from a corrupt, greedy, and inhumane insurance system. And perhaps that is what sours me on the Republicans more than anything: We always seem to have the money for wars but not for Americans.

Btw, college students, you will now be able to stay on your parent's policy until you are 26 years of age.

How much are YOU willing to pay per year to house, feed, educate, nurture and care for others from cradle to grave Ivan? How about in YOUR lifetime - how much do you feel YOU OWE to your fellow citizen?

I assume that you (like everyone else on the PF) intend to work and contribute their "fair share" - and not sit at home and collect.

Also, how do you feel about giving more power to the IRS to enforce these mandates - and the student loan program aspects that are being included?

 

[Alfi]

how much do you feel YOU OWE to your fellow citizen?

Everything?
Individuals are an evolutionary dead end in this collective society age.

 

[mheslep]

My source is Wikipedia. My point is that the claim that "If one controls life span for these causes of death, the US is close to or at the the top" is inaccurate.

Edit: A couple of references if you are interested:

http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

See especially Table 1-3 for causes of death other than health care related, and Table 1-5 for corrected numbers.
http://www.aei.org/docLib/20061017_OhsfeldtSchneiderPresentation.pdf

Table 1-5 again, same researchers in html online
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2007/09/natural-life-expectancy-in-united.html

 

[calculusrocks]

Btw, college students, you will now be able to stay on your parent's policy until you are 26 years of age.

That is suppose to make me feel better? That my elected officials have turned me into a thief, moocher, and a child for life?

 

[calculusrocks]

Barack Obama is the [STRIKE]Commander in Chief[/STRIKE] Lollypop Distributor in Chief.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8sZcmQr6KY

 

[spacemanspiff]

I guess I don't understand why people who don't have health insurance can't get it? It took me all of 30 seconds to hop on ehealthinsurance.com and find dozens of plans for under $100/m. What is the problem? The pre-existing illness is a problem and maybe we can try to cut pill costs, but we need a 2400 page new bill for that?

 

[MotoH]

Has the middle class been charged 40% more for insurance yet, or are the votes still coming in?