Printable View
What's up with the fat Lefties? I mean, you've got wierd right-wing nutjobs, but they're all different: Ann Coulter - anorexic transformer, Orielly Factor - giant evil leprechaun, Rush Limbaugh - getting-skinnier ex-junkie. But the left wing douchebags are all fat: Mike Moore - fat bastard, Al Gore - fatter by the minute, Rosie Odonnel - fat lesbo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky
I have a friend who had a large mole on her side. They ran some tests. It had metastasized. She was in to see the dermatologist within two week. Surgery to remove it was a month after that.
A couple of years ago my father was having a problem with his foot. He got a referral from his doctor and saw the podiatrist two weeks later.
I have a friend who had reconstructive surgery on his jaw. The almost identical surgery that bigtrubs is in line for. Three months from the time he got the referral to the specialist until the surgery was completed. It would have been sooner, but they pushed it back to allow him to finish the spring semester.
A couple of months is a lot better than a year and a half. Maybe the experiences of the people I know are not the norm.
I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree.
People are really quick to talk about how bad our system is, but everything I see points to it being better than anywhere else in the world.
It depends on how one measures "better care". But for at least one recent analysis, there's about 36 "better" ones:Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatPuppet
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...29/ai_66011865
http://www.cantonrep.com/index.php?C...subCategoryID=
Everything you're willing to absorb. Everything else is just wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatPuppet
What's really nuts is how much we, as Americans, really do believe that our health system is better. That's the far overriding opinion of most Americans.
So your first proposition here is incorrect.
What is interesting is looking at some statistics that say otherwise. The only reasonable footing for continuing to insist that U.S. healthcare is better is at least enumerating why these studies that place America's helth care system at 37th in the world is flawed.
What's really, really fucked up is how the U.S. system is clogged by poor hypochondriacs which make it unpossible for people with real but less frequent ailments to get attention. Try working in an E.R.
Are you sure these rankings take into account all the people in Britain, France or Canada....with Meatpuppet levels of resentment at being denied their god given right to be excluded from a free market healthcare system?Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
Why do I feel like I'm in bizarro land? It's exactly the people that can't pay that are the issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatPuppet
They should get a job Buster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
Don't you know getting a job defeats the income distribution curve?
Hayekian, eh what old boy!Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
Well, from the first article you linked to, this might have something to do with the ranking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
"Health statistics for each country were collected from individual agencies and ministries, assuring wide disparities in definition, reporting technique, and collection methodology. Indeed, the report concedes, that, "in all cases, [here are multiple and often conflicting sources of information," if sources at all. For the many nations that simply do not maintain health statistics, the WHO "developed [data] through a variety of techniques" Without consistent and accurate data from within a single country, how can meaningful comparison be made among 191 different countries?"
The second article mentioned that:
"For starters, the American system doesn't measure up worldwide in controlling chronic diseases, such as diabetes or hypertension. "
There are lifestyle choices that strongly influence these diseases. I hardly think American's lazy lifestyle is a fault of the medical system. Yet it influences our "ranking" among other industrialized nations.
And one more thing, from the second article:
"Kidney disease patients on dialysis have a higher risk of death in the United States. By an act of Congress in 1972, all end-stage renal disease is covered by Medicare, even for patients younger than 65. But because of Medicare funding cuts, patients on dialysis receive less time on dialysis than patients in Europe and Japan. That helps explain why Americans on kidney dialysis have a mortality rate of 23 percent compared with 15 percent in Europe and 9 percent in Japan, according to a May 2002 report in JAMA."
So it would seem that government involvement has made things worse, not better.
and one last quote:
"Payment systems reward doctors for doing procedures, not for managing those chronic conditions, so a world-class center -- such as Boston's Joslin Diabetes Center, which is supported by philanthropy -- stands in stark contrast to results seen by regular doctors treating the disease in average patients."
So again, bureaucrats making decisions for other people has not improved the situation, just the opposite; and people want to hand more control over to government and bureaucrats?:nonono2:
This is so true. I don't know how to get around it though.Quote:
What's really, really fucked up is how the U.S. system is clogged by poor hypochondriacs which make it unpossible for people with real but less frequent ailments to get attention. Try working in an E.R.
yes, the lack of quality mental care in America is appalling. Add in drug abuse/addiction and you've got 80%+ of emergency care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
ummm, yeah. That's my point.
shakes head in complete beffudlement.....Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatPuppet
I'm guessing its some argument how the massive taxation required to fund such an evil socialist scheme will crush our economy putting thousands out of work so they won't be able to afford the (free) health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit
pg. 115 of the manual
I concede I tried to find something to help you, kind of ease you in, Cato like.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatPuppet
I think this last statement is where we can get a platform. We agree there's a problem.Quote:
This is so true. I don't know how to get around it though.
I think we also agree that the bureaucrats fuck things most of the times.
But I think that where we differ is whether or not there is such a thing as a "free market".
The existence of bureaucrats preclude a "free market", both those in the government and those behind the executive or more shadowy private corporate veneer.
Nobody is going to protect you from the illusions of a free market like those perpetrated by the industrial or textile barons of the 19th century or the filth, starvation and disease of the labor classes of the time. Unions may suck, but when they were created, there was a need. Now, they're just another corrupt organism.
But health care is a problem that needs to be addressed. A government solution is better than no solution at all.
And if the government is failing, you've nobody but yourself to blame.
Fixed it for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
Me too, except mine's befuddlement. It was obvious that was his point in the quoted part of the post.Quote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit
I started to post to point that out, but then said screw it: he'll do it himself. And he did.
Those who have the money to write a check to pay for their health care are not the people who this debate is about. So it doesn't matter if they are in the States or in a country that has universal health care.Quote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit
Your entire argument rests on the concept that a claims adjuster working for the government is a bureaucrat, whereas the same claims adjuster working the same job for a multibillion dollar corporation is, somehow, not a bureaucrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by MeatPuppet
This would be comical if it wasn't such a widely held belief with such serious consequences. :nonono2:
Now let's cue the classic management essay "On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping For B," (Kerr, S., 1975, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 769-783)
The purpose of an insurance company is to make money for its owners. They make money by collecting your premiums, and lose money by providing medical care. Therefore, any private insurance system will always take as much money from you as they can, and deliver as little medical care as they can. This is why our health care isn't as good as many countries with public systems: it's not the objective.
Now let's address efficiency. Here is a partial list of huge costs of a private healthcare system that get smaller or go away under a public system:
1) Gigantic CEO and executive salaries. No one in the public sector makes $100 million, or even $1 million. $100 million buys a lot of healthcare for a lot of people.
2) Corporate profits in general. If a company makes $300 million in profit in a fiscal year, that's $300 million that could have bought healthcare or been returned to taxpayers under a public system.
3) The majority of emergency room visits, especially in cities, are not emergencies: they're poor people with nowhere else to go and who delay treatment for routine things until it's an emergency. Preventative care is a lot cheaper, even for people who never pay a dime into the system, unless you're willing to go to a completely private system where hospitals can refuse to treat dying patients if they can't find proof of insurance or a means of payment on their person.
4) More efficient paperwork. If everyone is eligible and there is only one payer, you don't need bureaucrats to figure out who's eligible and how to deny coverage. You still need them to process claims, but you need a lot less of them.
It's like no-fault auto insurance: frequently it's cheaper just to pay the claim that it is to pay lawyers and adjusters to argue about whose fault it is and who is or isn't covered.
5) More productive workforce. If people can stay healthy, they can keep working. Long-term disability (which we ALREADY HAVE) is a lose-lose for everyone, and you're a lot more likely to turn a minor injury or illness into a disabling injury if you can't afford to see a doctor.
Basically, there are only two options that make sense: a fully public system, or a fully private pay-as-you go system, where hospitals can refuse to admit anyone who can't pay.
No what was being pointed out was that if you felt that a Natonal Healthcare system would not provide adequate levels of care for your own personal agenda there was a thriving market providing secondary private health insurance.
The system was pointed out to you because at that particular time you were wadding your knickers about the indignity of being stood toward the back of a line of people poorer and therefore apparently less deserving of treatment than you.
Having made that even clearer perhaps you would now explain how health care in this country can be distributed in a less arbitrary way than simply the wealthiest first. Or if you prefer perhaps show me anywhere else in the world where people are clamoring to adopt the U.S. model rather than what I/we are advocating?
That works if you somehow consider paying for medical care not a tax.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodstocksez
Right. And producers of all goods and services make money by collecting your payments and they lose money by spending it on creating a good product or service. Therefore, any producer will always take as much money from you as they can and deliver as crappy a product or service as they can. This is why all of our goods and services suck ass compared to those produced by countries without a (more or less) free market economy: it's not the objective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
Look, my sense is that publicly provided basic healthcare is probably what we should do. But that simplistic analysis ain't gonna get you to a justification.
On the other hand, there's something to be said for many of your other, enumerated points, though I don't agree with all.
More generally, there are a variety of reasonable points being made on both sides. But you're analyzing large, relatively complex system(s), where cause and effect both internal and external to the system(s) is not precisely understood and carries a fair degree of unpredictability. Predicting outcomes for these system(s) is a bit like predicting the weather. That's not to say the exercise is worthless: we have to do something and we should take our best shot. My point is that the only idiots here (well, maybe not the only) are those who are certain they've got this all figured out and know for sure just what should be done. It's just not that easy.
Elucidate, please. I don't get the relevance to my post. Not saying it's definitely not there, but I don't see it. Help me.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
I also don't see why I should consider what I pay my doctors a tax any more than I consider what I pay my auto mechanic a tax.
I will, at some point, need Medical Care to continue to exist. Most people need medical care, at the very basic level preventative, to be fully functioning members of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by woodstocksez
People do not need cars to exist or function.
OK. Necessity doesn't make a payment a tax, though. I also need food to exist. I'm not aware that anyone considers buying groceries to be payment of taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by cj001f
No posts in nearly 15 minutes: the thread is stagnating. So I'll post something thought-provoking to get things going again.
Michael Moore is a fat pig.
Thoughts?