The US has the best health care in the world?

[mheslep]

When you have a moment could you provide the source for this statement:

..All the countries you mention, but also the states of the USA, adopted the WHO definition of infant mortality in the late 80's or the early 90's. Infant morality is defined as dead before the first birthday after live birth, and

Because this statement above and this one below

Definitions used in the by the WHO, the European union, individual US states and various other countries: http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_education_En/Live_birth_definition.htm

appear to be at odds with one another.

 

[Hans de Vries]

When you have a moment could you provide the source for this statement:
Because this statement above and this one below
appear to be at odds with one another.

See reference [7] at the end of the third paragraph which specifically defuses the false claims in the reference you gave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Comparing_infant_mortality_rateseRegards

 

[mheslep]

See reference [7] at the end of the third paragraph which specifically defuses the false claims in the reference you gave.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Comparing_infant_mortality_rates

A wiki reference? You made that earlier post

..All the countries you mention, but also the states of the USA, adopted the WHO definition of infant mortality in the late 80's or the early 90's. Infant

based on a wiki reference, with no attribution to wiki? C'mon, I think you know better.

 

[Hans de Vries]

A wiki reference? You made that earlier post
based on a wiki reference, with no attribution to wiki? C'mon, I think you know better.

It's clear now that both the US and the European Union adopted the definition
of infant mortality and live birth as defined by the World Health Organization.

http://www.gfmer.ch/Medical_education_En/Live_birth_definition.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_projects/2001/monitoring/fp_monitoring_2001_a1_frep_01_en.pdf

So that the tables entries can be compared one to one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=48&cat=2&sub=13&yr=79&typ=3&o=a&sortc=1
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&language=en&pcode=tps00027&plugin=0&tableSelection=1&footnotes=yes&labeling=labels

Regards, Hans

 

[WhoWee]

Details begin to emerge - just like car insurance (?) with fines up to $3,800.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

"
Fines proposed for going without health insurance AP

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 10 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Americans would be fined up to $3,800 for failing to buy health insurance under a plan that circulated in Congress on Tuesday as divisions among Democrats undercut President Barack Obama's effort to regain traction on his health care overhaul.

As Obama talked strategy with Democratic leaders at the White House, the one idea that most appeals to his party's liberal base lost ground in Congress. Prospects for a government-run plan to compete with private insurers sank as a leading moderate Democrat said he could no longer support the idea.

The fast-moving developments put Obama in a box. As a candidate, he opposed fines to force individuals to buy health insurance, and he supported setting up a public insurance plan. On Tuesday, fellow Democrats publicly begged to differ on both ideas.

Democratic congressional leaders put on a bold front as they left the White House after their meeting with the president.

"We're re-energized; we're ready to do health care reform," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., insisted the public plan is still politically viable. "I believe that a public option will be essential to our passing a bill in the House of Representatives," she said.

After a month of contentious forums, Americans were seeking specifics from the president in his speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. So were his fellow Democrats, divided on how best to solve the problem of the nation's nearly 50 million uninsured.

The latest proposal: a ten-year, $900-billion bipartisan compromise that Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., a moderate who heads the influential Finance Committee, was trying to broker. It would guarantee coverage for nearly all Americans, regardless of medical problems.

But the Baucus plan also includes the fines that Obama has rejected. In what appeared to be a sign of tension, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs pointedly noted that the administration had not received a copy of the plan before it leaked to lobbyists and news media Tuesday.

The Baucus plan would require insurers to take all applicants, regardless of age or health. But smokers could be charged higher premiums. And 60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds.

Baucus said Tuesday he's trying to get agreement from a small group of bipartisan negotiators in advance of Obama's speech. "Time is running out very quickly," he said. "I made that very clear to the group."

Some experts consider the $900-billion price tag a relative bargain because the country now spends about $2.5 trillion a year on health care. But it would require hefty fees on insurers, drug companies and others in the health care industry to help pay for it.

Just as auto coverage is now mandatory in nearly all states, Baucus would require that all Americans get health insurance once the system is overhauled. Penalties for failing to do so would start at $750 a year for individuals and $1,500 for families. Households making more than three times the federal poverty level — about $66,000 for a family of four — would face the maximum fines. For families, it would be $3,800, and for individuals, $950.

Baucus would offer tax credits to help pay premiums for households making up to three times the poverty level, and for small employers paying about average middle-class wages. People working for companies that offer coverage could avoid the fines by signing up.

The fines pose a dilemma for Obama. As a candidate, the president campaigned hard against making health insurance a requirement, and fining people for not getting it.

"Punishing families who can't afford health care to begin with just doesn't make sense," he said during his party's primaries. At the time, he proposed mandatory insurance only for children.

White House officials have since backed away somewhat from Obama's opposition to mandated coverage for all, but there's no indication that Obama would support fines.

One idea that Obama championed during and since the campaign — a government insurance option — appeared to be sinking fast.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., told reporters a Medicare-like plan for middle-class Americans and their families isn't an essential part of legislation for him. Hoyer's comments came shortly after a key Democratic moderate said he could no longer back a bill that includes a new government plan.

The fast-moving developments left liberals in a quandary. They've drawn a line, saying they won't vote for legislation if it doesn't include a public plan to compete with private insurance companies and force them to lower costs.

Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., who once supported a public option, said Tuesday that after hearing from constituents during the August recess, he's changed his mind.

"If House leadership presents a final bill that contains a government-run public option, I will oppose it," Ross said.

House Democrats are considering a fallback: using the public plan as a last resort if after a few years the insurance industry has failed to curb costs.

Obama's commitment to a public plan has been in question and lawmakers hoped his speech to Congress would make his position on that clear.

Baucus is calling for nonprofit co-ops to compete in the marketplace instead of a public plan.

An 18-page summary of the Baucus proposal was obtained by The Associated Press. The complex plan would make dozens of changes in the health care system, many of them contentious. For example, it includes new fees on insurers, drug companies, medical device manufacturers and clinical labs.

People working for major employers would probably not see big changes. The plan is geared to helping those who now have the hardest time getting and keeping coverage: the self-employed and small business owners. "

 

[Al68]

Details begin to emerge - just like car insurance (?) with fines up to $3,800.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

"
Fines proposed for going without health insurance AP

This isn't exactly breaking news, although the exact details are still being discussed. And the fine is not just for not having health insurance at all, it's for not buying one that meets HR3200 requirements, ie, a Cadillac superpolicy.

 

[adrenaline]

Although I may not agree with the fines it makes sense. We need everyone in the risk pool if we're going to effectively share risk and minimize premiums. If you support UHC then you have to support mandatory coverage.

This addresses the problem with those people who stay out of the insurance until they think that they are running out of health. At that point they will suddenly opt in and gain coverage without all of the years of paying in. The young don't avoid health insurance because they are healthy, they avoid health insurance because they are cheap.

 

[WhoWee]

Although I may not agree with the fines it makes sense. We need everyone in the risk pool if we're going to effectively share risk and minimize premiums. If you support UHC then you have to support mandatory coverage.

This addresses the problem with those people who stay out of the insurance until they think that they are running out of health. At that point they will suddenly opt in and gain coverage without all of the years of paying in. The young don't avoid health insurance because they are healthy, they avoid health insurance because they are cheap.

I understand why they've developed this strategy. However, unless they also hand out waivers to people who want insurance now (but really can't afford it), they're going to penalize the group that most needs coverage.

 

[WhoWee]

This isn't exactly breaking news, although the exact details are still being discussed. And the fine is not just for not having health insurance at all, it's for not buying one that meets HR3200 requirements, ie, a Cadillac superpolicy.

As I've disclosed previously, I'm a licensed insurance agent. If we can find the proposed coverage mandates, I'll pull a price quote for an average family of 4 - from a large company.

 

[jreelawg]

I understand why they've developed this strategy. However, unless they also hand out waivers to people who want insurance now (but really can't afford it), they're going to penalize the group that most needs coverage.

It is beginning to look like Hillary is going to get her way. Her campaign argued a mandatory insurance plan. During that time, my take was that it was a give away to insurance companies, by forcing people who can't afford it to buy it anyways. This would make it even easier to rip us off because they wouldn't need to make it affordable for the lower class, the lower class would just have to give up eating, or home heating, or electricity. Obama campaigned against this.

Now it seams that Obama's campaign promise is being snuffed out, and Hillary and the Insurance companies are getting what they want. I hope this isn't the case.

 

[Wax]

Make or break night on health care! I hope he makes it.

 

[mheslep]

Baucus, who apparently leads a group of bipartisan Senator's, has released an outline of his health plan.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM116_framework.html

Key points:
-Mandated coverage
-Interstate insurance
-Co-ops
-Guaranteed issue, no pre-existing blocks.

I don't like the mandates, but we won't get guaranteed issue/no pre-existing condition without it. Co-ops from what I read are very tricky to get right; it appears Baucus has put some real work into the them.

Insurance Reform in the Non-Group Market. Beginning January 1, 2013, health insurance plans in the individual market would be required to offer coverage on a guaranteed issue basis and would be prohibited from excluding coverage for pre-existing health conditions.
...
Interstate Sale of Insurance. Starting in 2015, states may form “health care choice compacts” to allow for the purchase of non-group health insurance across state lines. Such compacts may exist between two or more states. Once compacts have been formed, insurers would be allowed to sell policies in any state participating in the compact. Insurers selling policies through a compact would only be subject to the laws and regulations of the state where the policy is written or issued.
...
Individual Responsibility. Beginning in 2013, all US citizens and legal residents would be required to purchase health insurance or have health coverage from an employer, through a public program (i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, or CHIP), or through some other source that meets the minimum creditable coverage standard.

Edit: I expect this is closest to what will happen, perhaps by parts.

 

[WhoWee]

I heard a few things in Obama's speech that I liked. First, he pushed back on illegal immigrant coverage and down played the public option, the insurance exchange might mean standardization across the states (not sure) but will probably eliminate sales agents. Plus, he at least mentioned Tort reform - but also set it up to fail as a Bush initiative.

On the flip side, $0 deficit spending is laughable and no/low deductible, mandated testing, no limit to coverage, pre-existing inclusion, and elimination of the approval process is unrealistic as per cost. All of these things will increase premiums.

Accordingly (again, I'm a licensed insurance agent), I just pulled a quote for a family of 4 from one of the nations top 5 health insurance carriers - they have middle of the road pricing and a huge network.

As per the Presidents mandates, I rated-up one adult for a pre-existing (only 25% - same as high blood pressure - my guess is a real pre-existing will be a 100% + rate-up in practice), a family deductible of $1,000 total (including prescriptions and the mamography, Pap smear, and PSA testing), a $25 doctors visit co-pay, a $500 accident benefit, a $5.0 million lifetime benefit (they don't have a higher option amount - unlimited WILL cost more) and the premium would be $1,852 per month (with a 2 year agreement).

The total cost for this family of 4 would be $22,224 per year, plus the $1,000 deductible and the $25 co-pay per each doctor visit. For the record, this cost is in line with the so called "Cadillac Plans" the large unions typically enjoy.

The problem I see is that premiums will increase and make it impossible for a large number of average families - who will be fined for not purchasing the coverages.

On a final note, as long as the Government doesn't pay for these coverages, just mandates higher premiums, it could help offset the mandated costs to insurance companies and (this part of the plan) shouldn't add much to deficit spending.

 

[Al68]

Although I may not agree with the fines it makes sense. We need everyone in the risk pool if we're going to effectively share risk and minimize premiums.

Ahhh, necessity: the cry of tyrants and the creed of slaves. (Benjamin Franklin)

So, we are to be forced to "share" medical risks? Gee, nothing socialist about the government forcing people to share.

 

[f95toli]

Gee, nothing socialist about the government forcing people to share.

No offense, but I am getting REALLY tired of people throwing the word "socialist" around like that. Universal healthcare is definitely not just a "socialist" idea. you can find supporters for some form of government funded healtcare system is just about every major political ideology; socialism (obviously), conservatism (definitely modern paternal conservatism, but most branches would support it to some degree) and most branches of liberalism. That modern social-liberalism supports it goes without saying but even some forms of classical liberalism would potentially support a scheme like this.

The only political ideologies that could not (because of underlying principles) support UH are classical liberalism (a'la Spencer and other forms of "extreme" laissez-faire liberalism), probably libertarians and obviously anarcho-minimalists.
Anarchists would not support it simply because they don't believe in any form of government so they are not really relevant here.

 

[WhoWee]

No offense, but I am getting REALLY tired of people throwing the word "socialist" around like that. Universal healthcare is definitely not just a "socialist" idea. you can find supporters for some form of government funded healtcare system is just about every major political ideology; socialism (obviously), conservatism (definitely modern paternal conservatism, but most branches would support it to some degree) and most branches of liberalism. That modern social-liberalism supports it goes without saying but even some forms of classical liberalism would potentially support a scheme like this.

The only political ideologies that could not (because of underlying principles) support UH are classical liberalism (a'la Spencer and other forms of "extreme" laissez-faire liberalism), probably libertarians and obviously anarcho-minimalists.
Anarchists would not support it simply because they don't believe in any form of government so they are not really relevant here.

I'm not sure which ideologies are relevant to this discussion, but "The total cost for this family of 4 would be $22,224 per year, plus the $1,000 deductible and the $25 co-pay per each doctor visit. For the record, this cost is in line with the so called "Cadillac Plans" the large unions typically enjoy." the specific costs of these health care initiatives are relevant to everyone. The $22,224 equates to $5,556 per person per year - or face a fine to be enforced by the IRS.

I don't feel very "free" this morning.

 

[Wax]

On the flip side, $0 deficit spending is laughable and no/low deductible, mandated testing, no limit to coverage, pre-existing inclusion, and elimination of the approval process is unrealistic as per cost. All of these things will increase premiums.

No, zero deficit spending is the truth. The problem is he doesn't explain this part which is a big gap into why the American people don't trust him. He either doesn't know himself or he doesn't want the conservatives on the right to use it against him as a scare tactic that he might be cutting benefits for seniors. When people are talking about zero deficit spending, they are referring the future deficit.

Medicaid will run the American Financial system into the red because of one extremely large liability; the liability of taking care of 70 million baby boomers that are turning 65 in the next ten years. Ages 65 and over is the most expensive age group to insure. It is estimated to cost 4.9 trillion dollars in the next ten years to cover this age group with no health care reform. Obama doesn't have many options. He could cut medicaid all together, do nothing, or he can reform the system so that seniors will still be covered.


CUMULATIVE SPENDING ON MEDICAID BENEFITS PROJECTED TO REACH $4.9 TRILLION OVER 10 YEARS
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=3311

 

[WhoWee]

No, zero deficit spending is the truth. The problem is he doesn't explain this part which is a big gap into why the American people don't trust him. He either doesn't know himself or he doesn't want the conservatives on the right to use it against him as a scare tactic that he might be cutting benefits for seniors. When people are talking about zero deficit spending, they are referring the future deficit.

Medicaid will run the American Financial system into the red because of one extremely large liability; the liability of taking care of 70 million baby boomers that are turning 65 in the next ten years. Ages 65 and over is the most expensive age group to insure. It is estimated to cost 4.9 trillion dollars in the next ten years to cover this age group with no health care reform. Obama doesn't have many options. He could cut medicaid all together, do nothing, or he can reform the system so that seniors will still be covered.


CUMULATIVE SPENDING ON MEDICAID BENEFITS PROJECTED TO REACH $4.9 TRILLION OVER 10 YEARS
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=3311

Let me get this straight. He told the truth - there will be $0 deficit spending. But he can't explain how that's possible because he either doesn't understand or it will be used against him? Can you explain - at the risk of it being used against him?

 

[Wax]

Let me get this straight. He told the truth - there will be $0 deficit spending. But he can't explain how that's possible because he either doesn't understand or it will be used against him? Can you explain - at the risk of it being used against him?

He's restructuring the benefits for senior citizens which can easily be viewed as cutting benefits for senior citizens.

 

[WhoWee]

He's restructuring the benefits for senior citizens which can easily be viewed as cutting benefits for senior citizens.

And this will cover a $900,000,000,000 package?

 

[Wax]

And this will cover a $900,000,000,000 package?

I already showed you the data. He's talking about future liabilities. You know what a liability is right? If you really want him to spend ZERO then he'd have to cut the program all together.

 

[WhoWee]

I already showed you the data. He's talking about future liabilities. You know what a liability is right? If you really want him to spend ZERO then he'd have to cut the program all together.

Please highlight the specific data that you are referring to - I don't see ANY evidence that Obama can cover a $900,000,000,000 spending plan.

As for my personal knowledge of business, my first corporate position was in 1982 as Vice President of Operations for a public company with 800 retail locations and more than 20,000 employees in the US and Canada. I know what a liability is - present and future. What is your business experience?

As for what I want him to do - I want him to eliminate the fraud that he's apparently aware of right now. I want him to fire the officials in the Government that are responsible for monitoring these agencies and allowing these hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud to continue and further direct the Attorney General to look into the case immediately. I want him to fix the broken parts of our system before haphazardly applying his ideological agenda to satisfy his special interest groups.

Above all, I want him to be honest. If he has to cut the program because he lied or didn't understand (as you suggested) or mis-spoke - then he needs to cut the program, move out of the way and allow people with business experience solve the problem.

 

[humanino]

Why are people arguing ? There are other countries which do better than the US while spending less money to protect their citizen's health. Obviously what's happening is simple : if the US system is changed, a few people will make less money out of the health of all other people. Why is that bad ? Other countries do it better than you for less money than you : why would you refuse change ?

 

[Wax]

Please highlight the specific data that you are referring to - I don't see ANY evidence that Obama can cover a $900,000,000,000 spending plan.

I also don't see any evidence that the country can sustain a 4,900,000,000,000 liability.

 

[Wax]

Above all, I want him to be honest. If he has to cut the program because he lied or didn't understand (as you suggested) or mis-spoke - then he needs to cut the program, move out of the way and allow people with business experience solve the problem.

Medicare/Medicaid is an existing government program. What did he lie about? So you actually think insurance companies want to cover age groups 65 and over? Now, you're just being naive...

 

[WhoWee]

Medicare/Medicaid is an existing government program. What did he lie about? So you actually think insurance companies want to cover age groups 65 and over? Now, you're just being naive...

I really don't understand your position. The system is broken and needs fixed. Obama's plan is naive and ideological - it won't work. Obama is inexperienced and it shows.

We need a better strategy. I challenge you to apply the Scientific Method to this problem and come to the conclusion Obama has reached.

Start with mandating more expensive coverage than people are currently choosing to purchase will make health care more affordable to everyone. Next, factor in unlimited lifetime caps on coverage - insurance companies will have open ended agreements and will no longer have a voice in the approval process - no chance for corruption in that scenario. Now, include everyone with pre-existing conditions into the mix (regardless of the cost) and mandate they purchase only approved coverage.

I posted the results of an actual insurance quote for a family of 4 last evening - $22,224 per year. If one of them had a pre-existing condition (heart attack or stroke for instance) the cost could easily be more than $3,000 per month. Best of all, if they elect to purchase a lesser plan of coverage, they would be fined over $3,000 and the fine would be enforced by the IRS.

Obama is either naive or doesn't care what will happen to struggling families under his burden.

 

[jreelawg]

Somehow I think that Obama's plan would be a huge success. You have to realize that his opposition wants to win an Election. Perhaps have an idiot like Sarah Palin elected president next term. The easiest way to make this happen would be to let Obama pull off his health care reform, watch it fail, and rake in votes for Sarah palin.

I think that his opposition knows the plan will work, and that is part of why they need it defeated. They have stated they are determined to make the president fail. If they truly thought Obama's plan will fail, they would let it happen.

 

[WhoWee]

Somehow I think that Obama's plan would be a huge success. You have to realize that his opposition wants to win an Election. Perhaps have an idiot like Sarah Palin elected president next term. The easiest way to make this happen would be to let Obama pull off his health care reform, watch it fail, and rake in votes for Sarah palin.

I think that his opposition knows the plan will work, and that is part of why they need it defeated. They have stated they are determined to make the president fail. If they truly thought Obama's plan will fail, they would let it happen.

Somehow?

Are you aware that Obama doesn't need a single Republican vote? He can pass his entire agenda with only Democrat votes.

This is his problem - he doesn't have the full support of his own party.

As for Sarah Palin - SOMEHOW I don't think she's going to be elected President beacuse Obama can't sell his plan.

 

[jreelawg]

Somehow?

Are you aware that Obama doesn't need a single Republican vote? He can pass his entire agenda with only Democrat votes.

This is his problem - he doesn't have the full support of his own party.

As for Sarah Palin - SOMEHOW I don't think she's going to be elected President beacuse Obama can't sell his plan.

Corruption is a bipartisan phenomena.

The price you came up with is the cost of insurance pre health care reform. You haven't considered the whole picture. In order to be convinced, I would need to know how much profit insurance companies would make off of the plan, because after reform, profits will be forced down as competition sets in.

Secondly, reform goes deeper than just these regulations. For example, a lot of the spending goes into making health care more efficient. For example, electronic records, which will save a lot of money. When you add up and account for all the factors which will save money, adjust the profit margin to a realistic level, and throw in the money earned by those who currently don;t have insurance who will be forced to, there would be a difference.

If the plan works, insurance companies will pay less because care will be cheaper, and they will lower their rates accordingly. The competition of a public option will enforce this.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Best of all, if they elect to purchase a lesser plan of coverage, they would be fined over $3,000 and the fine would be enforced by the IRS.

It looks like the rational thing to do is to buy cheap insurance, pay the $3000 fine, and then if you get really sick, then opt-in.