Just so we're clear, neither stories have anything what so ever to do with insurance companies. They have to do with HOSPITALS.

Shit by any other name smells just as bad.

dc_dux: Repeat after me: The federal government should not be providing socials services for individuals.

wow, just that easy

Easier than leaving the country.

yeah, pretty much.

I don't see a lot of Libertarians leaving the country, probably because there isn't another country that lives up to their ideals.

I hear Somalia is a libertarian dream come true.

this from today's guardian (uk):

'Evil and Orwellian' ? America's right turns its fire on NHS | World news | The Guardian

so it appears that conservative---um---disinformation has reached a pitch such that it is prompting "what the fuck?" responses from england.
of course, if you don't feel like reading the above, the plot is quite simple: the right is making shit up. that people believe it is more a psychological and ideological problem than a reflection of reality.

again, this seems to me only possible because the obama administration has made a tactical blunder in taking the "hey kids let's put on a musical" approach to building consensus.

it seems pretty clear that the administration has to put forward one or more clear, definite plans in order to take control back from the noise-machine on the right.

There is a pattern, and it is not clear what your expectations are when factual information is given within the presentation of an opinion. It is easy to dismiss an opinion by saying something like they quoted unattributed stats, while ignoring the key point. It is a bit more of a challenge to actually respond with specifics to dispute the information provided. Some of us who have formed our views have already done the work, and don't have the patience to provide everybody else with a dissertation, in most cases you get the abstract. Sometimes you gotta do your own homework.

The fact is that Sebelius and others have been saying that we spend more on health care than other nations and we get inferior results. We spend more on health care for many reasons and to say we get inferior results (compared to what, and on what standard do they base the comparison is never given) , is misleading at best. In my view and in the view of many it is a lie. People are distrustful of politicians because of stuff like this. People distrust the media because they do not question stuff like this coming from Obama and his team.

The World Health Organization ranked the US as #1 in terms of cost but #39 in terms of quality. All Obama and his people are doing is quoting these stats.

I think I have asked this before, if I did I did not see the response. This "right is making shit up" thing - does it come from a plan, conspiracy or is it something that is a natural response to an information vacuum? Is this response typically unique to those on the "right"? Is it something rooted in "right" leaning ideology that makes them predisposed to you theory more or less than those not on the "right"?

I am curious, you present yourself as being above the pettiness that is coming from the "left" and the "right"? To me realizing there can be no unified voice of the "left" or "the "right" only a predominate voice, how can you be straddling the fence, or are you?

ace---before we go any further, did you actually read the article?

Yeah, I don't know anything about that study. I trust the WHO.

Here are their statistics for Canada:

For the United Kingdom:



And for the US:

Life expectancy in the US is lower, probability of dying young is higher and per capita spending is higher as well. In short, citizens of the US spend more and get less, says the WHO.

But please, tell me more about how my commie system is broken.

PR-2000-43/ WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION : ASSESSES THE WORLD'S HEALTH SYSTEMS


O.k., so I do a search and spend 30 seconds reading the report, and I come across this:

So, the very first question that comes to my mind is why use GDP? Then: Are they including pharma R&D which would be included in GDP? Does the US dominate the world in pharma R&D? Should they adjust for that? How does France rank in Pharma R&D? Do the include medical higher education spending? Do they adjust for doctors trained here and who go back home to practice? Do they include the billions in medical aid we send to Africa? Gee, it goes on and on, and that was just from barely getting through the second paragraph. so, I will read more, look at the footnotes and come to a conclusion - but Sebelius could have saved me a lot of time by explaining her statement in detail.

---------- Post added at 06:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:48 PM ----------

Yes.

---------- Post added at 06:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:51 PM ----------

what if the US is a more violent society than Candida or the UK? If true what value would the stats you present have in coming to a conclusion regarding health care?

what if the US is a more racist society than Candida or the UK?

what if the socio-economic differences are greater in the US than Candida or the UK?

what if life style factors affecting health are worse in the US than Candida or the UK?

Do you ignore those kinds of factors when assessing a health care system, or do you try to adjust for those factors?

Or what if millions of Americans can't afford access to even basic healthcare?

What if millions of Americans are afraid to go to the doctor because of the expense involved?

I can play this game too.

Healthcare is not the answer to all social ills, and suggesting it is is misdirection, plain and simple.

As someone who lives in a country with universal healthcare, the idea of arguing against it is bizarre. It's like arguing that fire departments should be private, or education. This is a basic public service.

no reason to apologize, there was no insult implied.

Maybe you should spend more than 30 seconds reading the article. Since the measure is of spending on "health care services," no, they do not include Pharmaceutical R&D. And using GDP is because it accounts for differences in wealth and only looks at proportional spending. But using GDP is something that should make the results more favorable towards the US, given it's higher GDP per capita. If you look at just per capita spending, the inefficiency of the US healthcare system becomes even more pronounced.

Yes, you do. But the biggest difference in spending is not caused by any disease or health problem, but by significantly higher overhead costs in the American system. And in any case, that should only make it clear that the US system is far inferior, since not only are the outcomes worse, but access statistics are also much, much worse.

And if the US is a more violent society on one hand, Canada and Europe are much older societies on the other.

The US spends more on healthcare overhead on a per capita basis than what greeks spend on private and public healthcare combined! Meanwhile, greece has more hospital beds, hospital admissions and average length of hospital stays per capita than the US.

USA wastes more on health care bureaucracy than it would cost to provide health care to all of the uninsured

http://content.healthaffairs.org/con...rson_tbl1.jpeg

http://content.healthaffairs.org/con...rson_tbl5.jpeg

Well in the US the same statistic is above 80%

Health Care Polling: The Haves Vs. The Have Nots - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Isn't that different than saying our health care system is inferior? I think addressing access is one question, delivering the best health care in the world is a different one. I agree that everyone in this country does not have equal access to health care. Some of it is a simple matter of education. Prenatal care for example, this can make a big difference in infant health and mortality, but low income, young, single mothers often do not take advantage of the care available to them.

I agree this is a problem also. I don't like the fact that senior citizens often have to make a choice between prescription drugs and food. I think we can fix these problems.

The question comes down to what happens given limited resources, who makes the decision on how those resources get allocated. If government is clear and honest about this, I could support government controlled health care. My fear centers around distrust, if Obama or whoever could alleviate this fear they could win my support.

---------- Post added at 08:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 PM ----------

If you have read what I have written on this subject you would know what my concerns are. I have no problem with universal coverage, in fact I would mandate coverage and provide single payer coverage to every child born in this country. I also, think a single payer plan could work. I think health care requires government involvement and just like there is a single payer for national defense, I think there could be a single payer for health care with supplemental options giving people choice to enhance coverage.

this comes from a pretty interesting comparative sociological paper:

The Orientation of Professionals in Health Care Organizations in France, Canada, and the U.S.: Clients, Communities and Bureaucracies
Ivy Lynn Bourgeault, Ivan Sainsaulieu, Kristine Hirschkorn

what's interesting is the comparative approach, the focus on the interaction between insurance regime and medical organization--the differences between which become really apparent in reading these results. this interaction has considerable impace on both professional activities/trajectories and the quality of care. the central finding are in the paragraph i excerpted above.

if you want, pm me with an email address and i can send you the pdf of the article.
what's particularly good is the bibliography...if you're inclined to the game of chasing footnotes, you may also be inclined to run into actual data.

this compliments some of the higher-order arguments above that have been presented with at least some actual information, as opposed to the usual recycling of memes. the difference is that this paper---and there are others--i could barrage you with them---focus on the micro registers.

there is a direct link between quality of care and insurance regime.
what managed care says and what it does are very different from each other.
draw your own conclusions---but sooner or later, you have to start looking at evidence, thinking about how it's put together what the arguments are, how they connect to the evidence---you know, read critically.
one would hope anyway.

Let's phrase the question differently, then.

If you agree that universal coverage is a Good Thing and you don't trust your government to manage it effectively, who would you propose should be in control? We seem to be in agreement that the current American system is broken; if we take that as given, then the logical conclusion is that leaving for-profit insurance companies in charge of delivering healthcare to the general population is not the right answer. We either go public or private here, and simply saying that neither one is good enough doesn't provide a solution.

What's your answer?

In other news a white guy steals and then rips up a poster of Rosa Parks at a town hall meeting.....


Why? This lady should press charges for theft and destruction of property.

The link I got to was not the actual report, I could not find a free copy. Have you seen one. How do you know what "health care services" includes?

O.k., lets see how can I explain some of the problems with coming to a conclusion for health care based on % of GDP. Let's say you have a farm and I have a farm. I produce 100 whatevers and you produce 25 whatevers, our GDP. We both use horses I spend 20% of my GDP on medical expenses for my horses, you spend 10% on your horses. You spend 2.5 I spend 20. Your horses live longer than my horses, etc, etc. If your horses break a leg or if they have a problem, they get a bullet in the head and a nice burial. Your horses don't tend to complain about broken legs or other problems because they know the drill. My horses get first class treatment and if they can't work they go out to stud. They die early trying to have as much sex as possible with the young fillies. Would you rather be a horse on my farm or yours?

Liberal propaganda reporting on conservative propaganda.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/...s-before-care/

Each individual should be in control of their own choices. If everyone has access to a basic or base plan, either private or public, and then access to supplemental coverage or additional coverage in a competitive market - that may be the best solution. I am open to many possibilities, I just wish proponents of certain plans would be honest about what the consequences are. The dishonesty is cause for the distrust.



The system needs fixing, I am not sure it is broken. Just like with a finely tuned automobile, you take it to the track - you make adjustments to get it to run better - but you don't scrap it if you need a different set of tires. With health care there is no "right" answer, only the answer we choose. I do personally think it is wrong that children live in this country without access to health care.

The town hall meetings on health care have turned into a forum for some miss-informed people to vent their anger about what they perceive as government death panels and the like. Like Palin said the government death panels may decide to kill grandparents and mentally challanged children. People get real exited by these statements. It is almost impossible to have a dialogue with people screaming at you for wanting to kill their loved ones.

It would be good for the country if Republicans would ratchet down the fighting rhetoric and instead focus on their alternative reforms. I believe they may be right about a government alternative eventually taking over the majority of health care. I don't think this is such a bad thing but the Democrats won't openly say so for political reasons.

I believe that staying the course in health care will be a disaster and may bankrupt many people and maybe even the government in a few years. I hear Hannity, Beck and others talk about how adding 50 million people will cause doctor shortages and I wonder just what do they think should be done with them and the thousands becoming uninsured every week.

At the present rate even those of us with insurance will not be able to afford it much longer.

And, why did they escort the black lady out? This is not good. Leaders in Washington need to go back to Washington and re-group and come back with real answers. This is getting out of control. The information vacuum is real.

---------- Post added at 08:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:37 PM ----------

I wish we could stop pretending these concerns are not real. Stop pretending that Rush Limbaugh or Palin are the cause of this hostility. The anger, distrust, hostility, fear, etc.,etc, is out there, you can not just flip a switch to make it stop. It is time for leadership.

I have no doubt that the anger is real. The same could be said about the birthers who interrupt town hall meetings. I believe there are a lot of people who will not accept the fact that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama can be trusted much less be elected president. No amount of leadership is going to win them over. What can one do to convince unrully people to stop yelling and allow a civil town hall discussion to take place?

I agree they have to do with the health care system in the US. Which is the what the town hall meetings and this thread are about.

If health insurance companies, big pharma et el hadn't spent the better part of the last three decades buying off elected officials and convincing people that national health care is evil and socialism then these folks would have likely been covered. Had they been covered they likely would have received care. To say these events are solely the responsibility of hospitals is clearly not looking at the big picture.

During the day I usually have MSNBC on during the day so that I can hear it while I work or do this. This is a perfect example of what is fanning the hostility. People are getting dog tired of being told that if they disagree with an Obama plan they are either a racist, a dumb right winger following the dictates of Rush, dishonest, or simply the enemy of our great leader. I know what is like to be constantly personally attacked for being conservative from participating on this political forum, my response is usually to use humor or sarcasm, I have thick skin - most people don't.

They could listen. They could stop with the smirks as they dismiss legitimate concerns. They could stop lumping every conservative in the same group, just because a few are in the birther movement doesn't mean everyone is.

Go back to Washington, come up with a plan, and then communicate it to the American people. Currently there is no "the bill" that everyone refers too, how can they say what is not in something that does not exist?

this is false.
there's a ton of data available that demonstrates the opposite--the organization of hospitals--and treatments--are profoundly influenced by the insurance regime they work inside of. not in *every* way of course, but in many ways, particularly in the degrees of bureaucracy and, more importantly, it's orientation. see the post on the previous page i made.

Yeah Rush and Palin aren't at all responsible. They just tell their followers stuff like Obama's just like the Nazis and he wants to create death panels. That's type of stuff wouldn't incited the seeds of hate, right?

I do agree once you yell fire in a crowded theater you can't just flip a switch and make it stop.

Again I agree that the system is flawed. These Hospitals that are refusing care to people are breaking the law plain and simple. No one can be turned away. Primary Care Physicians is a different story and needs to be addressed admittedly.

What worries me the most is that if there is nationalized health care, I might loose my job. I don't want to loose my job, so, I am hoping for a hybrid system. I've already lost three Accounts this week because of all the uncertainty with the Reform proposals. Company decision makers are reluctant to move forward with new plans until the issue is resolved, which is leaving me standing there shaking my head. I don't even sell health insurance, I sell supplemental insurance, mainly Income Protection(short term disability).

---------- Post added at 05:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:28 PM ----------



I do agree that hospital and insurance companies but heads, but the fact of the matter is these hospitals broke the law when they refused treatment to patients. Every hospital in the country has signs posted "patients bill of rights" one such right is the right to treatment regardless of insurance. Yes if you don't have insurance you will be billed, and you most likely can't afford the bill, but the issue in question is that the hospitals refused treatment not the insurance company

I thought Pelosi was the first to refer to people at these town hall meetings as people carrying signs with swastikas. And even if Rush and Palin are fanning hate, why assume they are responsible for the expression coming from these meetings. Again, you illustrate a dismissive attitude and insult honest people who have real concerns. This is about the 5th or 6th time I have made this point. I am not shouting, but at some point even I would get so frustrated that I would feel the need to scream, why don't you listen?


Perhaps there is a lesson for Obama and members of Congress? Care to share what you think they might want to take from our current situation regarding the health care debate, or it all some one else's problem?

Because the police didn't know what happened. They saw a conflict and removed both people involved. In the end they released the black lady and arrested the white guy and is now under investigation for aggravated assault. The police did exactly as they should in such a situation. Remove those involved to prevent escalation and figure out what happened afterword.

I think that is one of the reasons for town hall discussions. Why so much anger, distrust, hostility, fear, etc.,etc over a bill that does not yet exist instead of discussing what one thinks should be in the final bill? I have watched a few town halls and congress persons trying to assure those yelling that they are there to discuss health care reform only to be shouted down and unable to discuss anything.

At this point I think Obama needs to make a national address. Try to present his arguments, and try to calm some of the people down that are ruining these town meetings.

You are still assuming that the only ones riled, angered, and interrupting are racists who wouldn't follow Obama anywhere. why?

I saw the tape here and I saw it on MSNBC. It is funny how a "news" organization did not present the facts. Perhaps they need to take some responsibility for fanning flames as much as they accuse Rush of doing it. I would not even know what Rush says if not for liberal talk and news shows.

What good would that do? The people who he would be targeting are fox news viewers. Fox news has already chosen not to air many of Obama's speeches and i'm sure they would do the same with this one.

The greatest irony is that one time instead of airing Obama they aired a program called "Lie to me".

---------- Post added at 10:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------


Oh I agree, the MSM really dropped the ball on this one. They chose to create hyperbola instead of present facts. Hell I just read today that CNBC is helping organize protests so they can then report on it.

I am not assumimg that they are the only ones, just a lot of them. I formed my opinion like most of us do, from talking with friends and family and observing the rhetoric from the rallies during the presidential campaign. I am probably also influenced by the people around me here in Appalachia. It seems to me that there has to be more behind those interrupting any discussion at these meetings as if they just want to shut it down and not allow anyone else to voice an opinion. I suspect many of the same people are involved with the birthers and tea parties.

i don't think that's correct either, rahl. the relation betwee hospital bureaucracies that interface with insurance companies and the companies is really a matter of administrative cultures, which compartmentalize (separate cause and effect, for example)...so formally everyone might say that patients are not being refused treatment, while in reality the consequence of the administrative culture (and forms) prevents patients from getting treatment. does anyone say "fuck off, you..."? no: is the effect any different from that? materially no. formally of course yes, because, well, no-one said "fuck off" to anyone.

what constitutes the breaking of such a law, really? an explicit action undertaken by particular agents. an entire administrative apparatus that has the same effect even as the administrators can tell themselves it doesn't---is that a breaking of the law? depends on the politics of the situation, doesn't it? if you have advocacy groups, for example, that can break through the layer on layer of heavily funded corporate pr that passes for information, maybe. but they have to break through it, and then redefine the terms of debate.

as it turns out, that's happening anyway, but with a different adversary for these corporate interests to deal with.

it's an interesting battle from that viewpoint.
then you get to how it's being fought out, and it goes back to being depressing as hell again.

First time I heard the Nazi comparison was August 6 when Rush said "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate" Then he went on to say stuff like Obama's logo looks like a Nazi symbol and other Nazi comparisons. Then a couple days ago Pelosi pointed out that people were showing up to these town halls with swastikas... because people were showing up with swastikas.

So Rush and Palin say untrue things, like the death panel comment, and it's completely unreasonable for me to think that at least some of these people are reacting to the hate speech and lies spread by these two?

I have no problem with people who have honest concerns, I'm not sure how pointing out these facts insult them. But if your honest concern comes from bull shit information...




The current debate really hasn't even been a debate. Anytime someone tries to discuss this issues people starting screaming the talking points that have been put out by the right. Several think tanks and lobbying groups have put out bullet point on how to disrupt the town halls. "Make sure you get there early so you can sit up front, make lots of noise, yell if you have to be heard etc..." That's not a debate, that's a bunch of adults acting like children.

I think the strategy is to disrupt and cause chaos so nothing gets passed, that's their goal... maintain the status quo.

No, I don't think it's someone else's problem. I do think having a logical, honest and mature debate would be a good start in resolving this issue. Personally with rising co-pays and premiums I don't think the status quo is a viable option. Then only real benefactor is the health care industry.

I will concede your point. my point was specifically in the video of the woman dieing in the psyche ward waiting room, the hospital staff blew it. There wasn't some insurance ceo standing in her way of getting care

it's good we agree on something, rahl.
and you're right, there wasn't an insurance ceo standing there.
maybe this is one of the problem with this debate as a whole: there isn't even agreement on where to look to start thinking about the problems that exist, even at the level of how they're framed in the press--which is itself a Problem, a serious Problem.

in my view, if you want to see just how badly served we are by the dominant media, look around. we're seeing it.

Glad we do too:thumbsup: I think you just summed up why this reform can't be rushed. If nobody can pinpoint the exact problems, how can we hope to fix it. This is why most people are pissed about the bailouts. Everyone panicked, didn't understand the problems fully, and bam we throw a bunch of money at it with both eyes closed hoping it sticks.

Holy crap. You do realize that the issue you have portrayed has nothing to do with using GDP as a weight in comparisons, right?

You do realize that, considering that the US has the largest GDP in the world, and one of the largest GDP per capita in the world, the fact that the US spends more as a share of GDP means that the US spends much more, comparatively, in actual dollars, right?

And you do realize that the table I linked above actually shows that Americans get LESS healthcare, measured in visits, hospital stays, hospital beds, etc. than others who spend much less, right?

And you do realize that not only do other nations get more care, they also have better outcomes, right?

In other words, other than obfuscation, what was the point of this post?

It is true that some opponents of Obama sat down and developed a strategy to disrupt and cause chaos so that nothing gets passed. It is also true that it was easily predictable that some opponents of Obama would sit down and develop a strategy to disrupt and cause chaos so that nothing gets passed.

Is the Obama team that naive to think they would not face some opposition and did not have a plan for it? Could that be a lesson for them?

Could it be the original strategy to rush the bill through back fired and could that be a lesson for them?

Could it be that Obama did not present a specific plan to Congress, and could that be a lesson for them?

Why are liberals and Obama always victims of the "right" or the vast "right wing conspiracy"? Do you folks truly not understand that you are in a political dog fight, or are you guys just using a strategy of trying to get sympathy?

Oh, I don't know maybe because the right does things like shoot doctors and blow up buildings?

hey ace---how about you address dippin's post directly above yours?

As I was witting the analogy, I started thinking the point would be missed.

O.k., I will not use an analogy but ask a question to illustrate a point.

If the US spends a higher percentage of GDP on health care, what are we spending a smaller percentage on?

Compared to some nations are we spending a smaller percentage on, oh lets say - food? Or, how about clothing? What logical conclusion can you draw from that? You can't draw any logical conclusion from making the connections between these variables. You have to dig deeper and really understand what is going on in each nation.

Here is a good one to chew on - we spend a smaller percentage of GDP on food but we are the most obese nation in the world. Does that mean our food is really, really, good.

If life is prolonged based on being in a hospital bed, I would rather live a shorter life outside of the hospital. I would rather chase the young fillies!

No.

The conclusion reached by the World Health Organization is B.S.

---------- Post added at 04:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

We have police, FBI, CIA, security, etc. - we know there are crazy people in the world and we take proactive measures to reduce the risk of crazy people doing harm to innocent people. When you say the "right" in this context, I assume you really mean violent crazy people and that you don't put people like me in that group, and that you simply consider me to be "crazy".:thumbsup:

---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:11 PM ----------

Based on what you know of the report do you think coming to a conclusion from making a correlation between things like percentage of GDP spent on health care and life expectancy is correct?

Notice how hard you have to work to make this point? That might NOT be a function of the density of the people you're talking into. It might instead be an indicator of the stretch that your point is.

ANYHOO

Bottom line for me: liberals protest war, conservatives protest health care. Ok! That's the world we live in, I guess.

when did I start doing that? :rolleyes:

Oh, and these Town Hall Cryers are being presented as the vox populi, while a thousand times more people protested the Iraq War without anywhere NEAR as much news coverage. Say it with me: liberal media my ass!

Ace, as a point of interest I thought you might like to know that with your horse analogy your argument has officially become so ludicrous that, despite my best efforts, I'm incapable of taking it seriously.

I was planning on going for a walk this afternoon. I'd best step carefully -- apparently if I break my ankle, they'll shoot me.

EDIT - Also, I find it interesting that your op-ed piece should be taken as a credible source, while statistics from the international organization whose sole mandate is to monitor and report on the state of healthcare across the globe are bullshit.

If you're swimming in Egypt, what river are you in?

The conclusion you can reach from that is that the US spends a larger proportion of their available money on healthcare. How hard can this be? If you want to know if something is cost-effective, you look at how much it costs, and the outcomes. In the US, for the costliest health care in the world you get something that is far, far from being the best health care in the world. Hence, other nations have much more cost effective systems.



Holy crap, this kind of thing must be a joke, right? You can't really be comparing a matter of taste (food) with healthcare. In this case, the appropriate comparison would be that food production and distribution in the US is more efficient than in other nations.


So you point is that it is a GOOD thing that Americans have poor healthcare? And that having lousy healthcare and dying younger is so much better that you'd be willing to pay more for it? Seriously? I mean, you don't want to just cut healthcare at all in order to die younger, you want to spend a ton more to die younger?


How so? You haven't addressed their conclusions in any way, other than to say that you'd rather die young...

Someone's going to get hurt/killed here soon

I predict this also.

I've thus far refrained from commenting on this four subject thread. But I will comment to say that I absolutely agree with this. At this point, it's almost innevitable. When it does happen, it's going to throw gasoline on flames that have already been fanned out of control.

I think it's incumbent on the majority of conservatives (aka "non-nutbags") to stand up and denounce this noisy-but-fringe bullshit RIGHT NOW.

A presidential national address I think is needed at this point. He should call for a stop to these bs townhall meetings, and ask the media to stop pumping the bellows. Probably won't work but it couldn't hurt

when someone DOES get hurt/killed, the Beck's and Limbaugh's of the conservative media will simply say "I can't be held responsible for the actions of deranged individuals" and then blame Obama for inciting riots with his socialist agendas.

i put this in the pub thread about whos responsible for the various distortions on the question of health care, but it's just as relevant here given the turn in the conversation. have a look:

The Threat Is Real: Why Right-Wing Rage at Townhall Meetings Could Quickly Turn Deadly | Politics | AlterNet

Agreed. I think it might behoove The President to address the concerns and fears of the populace of a country currently $9,000,000,000 in debt and spending (and planning to spend) even more like theres no tomorrow.

I just heard on msnbc that there is a stand off in LA where a man who allegedly made threats against the whitehouse is holed up in an aparment building causing the police to evecuate the residents.

This is only gonna get worse.

I generally assume when I fail to clearly communicate a point that the failure is mine. In some instances I conclude that some of my points are simply ignored, but there is a difference between that and when I don't have the ability to clearly communicate what I am thinking. My points are usually elementary, the difficulty is in eliminating the "noise". So, even this point can easily be interpreted the wrong way as an insult to the reader. But the point is elementary - simplicity is surrounded in a fog of complexity, with the challenge being to cut through the fog.

Didn't see any liberals going over to Afghanistan to protest right after 9/11, did you? Didn't see any liberal protesters going over to Iraq after they invaded Kuwait, did you? Didn't see any liberal protesters in Iraq as Saddam was ordering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people be killed, did you?
Didn't see any liberal protesters in Vietnam after the US withdrew protesting the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, did you?
Don't see any liberal protesters going to N. Korea or Iran to protest the war postures those countries are taking to perhaps help reduce the risk of another war, do you?

---------- Post added at 07:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------

I don't take any statistics seriously until I look at them in detail. The point of the op ed peice was to quickly show that there was a different perspective concerning the notion that US health care is inferior to other industrialized nations. It all depends on how you parse the numbers. Sebelius never clarified what she meant by her comments, there are questions, and those questions remain unanswered. It appears that you are not even curious. I am willing to dig deeper, read reports and footnotes, etc., I am still waiting for someone to give a link to the report so we can look at it in detail - I can not find a free copy.

LOL dude, you're a riot. It's like watching the hannity line of logic, it just falls flat on it's face. Apples to oranges and strawmen all over the place.

At least put some effort in to making sense next time.

I think it's incumbent on the majority of liberals (aka 'non-nutbags') to stand up and denounce the strong arm tactics of the SEIU thugs RIGHT NOW.

that should do it.

Which report is that? The World Health Statistics?

WHO | World Health Statistics 2009

Or was there another WHO publication you were looking for?

WHO | Publications

It's all available as free .pdf downloads. You can also find the statistics quoted above here, and honestly I think they're more relevant to the discussion. I copy and pasted the summaries, but you can find a wide range of statistics on everything from child mortality to obesity and nutrition to tobacco and alcohol consumption, if that's your thing.

Out of curiosity, did you actually look before declaring this information unfindable?

Again, according to the statistics provided by the international non-partisan body charged with monitoring this very issue, US citizens pay more per capita, and get less for it. These are facts, and are not subject to opinion.

Finally, I need you to come right out and say it, because it's unclear to me. What questions precisely are you referring to that remain unanswered?

In a country like Zimbabwe in Africa they spend about $300 per year per person on food. The Zimbabwe GDP is about $300 per person according to Wikipedia. Zimbabwe spends about 100% of their economy on food, not counting what is donated. Zimbabwe ranked 155 in the Health care report. What do you conclude from this random bit of information, nothing.

Here is a link to "food" data:

Per capita food expenditures declining around the world. - Free Online Library

Now according to the World Health Organization the life expectancy in Japan, highest, was 74.5. For the US the number was 70.0 Here is their definition of how they came up with the number, and the link:

Here is their explanation:



World Health Organization Disability Adjusted Healthy Life Expectancy Table (HALE)

Here is a link to data from our National vital Statistics report from the CDC:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_09.pdf

Page 30 shows life expectancy of a person born in 2004 of 77.8, compared to the 70.0 number above and the 74.5 number for Japan. Then if we look in the data (realizing this is a nation with racial issues with blacks and Hispanics - legal and illegal) if we look at white people only, the life expectancy is - 78.3 compared to 69.5 for black males.

So, what do you conclude from those bits of information?

Then if we look at something like homicide, which has an impact on life expectancy. We find that the US had a homicide rate 3.3 times higher than Canada in 2000. Here is a link to a report:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-...001011-eng.pdf

What do you conclude from that?

How does the WHO report adjust for these kinds of factors when coming to a conclusion about health care? You don't know, I ask questions. You take the report on blind faith, I challenge the report. You think I have a problem, I don't. I spend time connecting dots, do you?

---------- Post added at 08:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

Did you read what I was responding to? I get tired of the line about how liberals protest against war. That is bull shit. They risk nothing when they go out and do their little protests.

Sorry, these numbers are useless until you include taxation levels. You can't include how much you "pay directly for healthcare" and then exclude how much you pay in taxes for it. I'm not demanding that one produce the taxation number as well, I'm simply discounting the numbers provided as a partial picture to backup a pre-determined conclusion.

---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 PM ----------

I think that's a great idea. Let's have the president be the only voice in the healthcare debate. Letting the people say their peace is just muddying the water towards real progress. Better yet, let's just let him write his bill in to law. Then, we don't even have to waste our time debating it. This would be a lot easier if we just crowned him Emperor.

Give me a break. I ended up here and could not fine a downloadable version of the current report:

WHO | The world health report

So, I asked! Assuming others had already read the report, I thought someone could simply provide a link, gee.:shakehead:

Assuming that the homicide rate is unrelated to the overall mortality rate (which I'm not sure it is, unless healthcare providers are in the habit of leaving gunshot victims to die), according to the document you linked the homicide rate in the US as of 2007 was 5.5 per 100 000 population. Taken in the context of the overall mortality rate (as provided in the WHO statistics) of 1080 per 100 000, I'm not sure this can really be considered statistically significant.

Here is some info I came across a few minutes ago:

American Economy vs Canadian Economy - Difference and Comparison - Diffen

---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:08 PM ----------

You say you are not sure, neither am I. That is my point. You have to dig into the numbers. I still don't understand how WHO makes its "adjustments" to life expectancy. whatever assumptions they use could very well materially alter the numbers and any conclusion they reach from the numbers. Getting to seem very subjective to me, but I will read the full report now that I have it.

Apparently my rhetorical style made my point unclear.

A difference of 5.5 per 100 000 is just over half of a percentage point within the context of the overall statistic. Even if we completely discount homicides we still end up with an overall mortality rate of approximately 1074.5 per 100 000 (inflated from 108 per 1000 to correlate with the homicide statistic). This is still significantly higher than the figures for Canada (720 per 100 000) or the UK (790 per 100 000).

Homicide rates have absolutely no relevance here.

You can't be serious here. You really can't. So you don't want to use data weighed on GDP? Fine, but you do realize that it UNDERMINES your point, right? Because the difference between what the US spends and other nations spend on healthcare actually INCREASES if you just use the dollar amount. Do you not understand that? Are you just trying to string together words to pretend you have a point?

Have you actually read anything at all that has been posted on this thread? It is not just life expectancy that the US does worse than other developed nations. It's infant mortality (not too many homicides there), it's number of doctor visits, it's hospital beds available, it's yearly mortality rates, it's adult mortality rates net of homicides and injuries, it's newborns with low birth weight, it's mortality by infectious disease, and so on and so on.

On one post you are saying that the US healthcare system is wonderful because you don't want to live longer anyways, on the other you are saying that all statistics are wrong....

Just for the record, it now appears that Palin was for "death panels" before she was against them, given the proclamation she signed last year:

Yep...just what the House bill proposes.

Yet,....being the hypocritical hack that she is, and in the self-proclaimed new role as the voice for the "common, hard working, patriotic American", for some reason she feels to the need to keep stoking the fires and demonstrating her ignorance.

The homicide rate for people born in 2009 is most likely zero.
The homicide rate in 2010 for people born in 2009 is also close to zero.
The homicide rate in 2011 for people born in 2009 is also close to zero.
Etc.
Etc.

does your analysis take into consideration the cumulative impact of the difference between the two countries?

Secondly, if we look at probabilities of homicide, from the source cited below it shows the lifetime odds of death in the US in 1996 by homicide is 1:169 or 592 in every 100,000. That is .6%.

Here is a link to the data:

Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

I don't have comparable data for Canada, but if it is 1/3, the rate for Canada would be about .2%. One of the keys is when these homicides occur. compared to an 80 average year life span, if the homicides occur in the years of let's say 18 to 25 it would have a bigger impact than if they occurred 48 to 55.

Again if we take the time to dig into the numbers there is clearly a difference between male and female life spans. Many factors contribute, one could be the difference in homicide rates between males and females. If, this is a factor- this factor would have nothing to do with health care. The same could be true in the comparison of Canada and the US

You can dismiss homicide rates, I don't. I would want a detailed mathematical analysis before reaching the conclusion you have come to.

---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------

This is interesting but there are really two different issues on the table regarding "death panels (I agree this is a bad way to describe the issue), there is what you refer to, and there is what I am concerned about. See my post #90 and what preceeded it on this issue.

ace, I knew you would find a way to attempt to dodge and weave around this one.

Its more than a "bad way to describe the issue"....it is willful and intentional fear-mongering.

I have a better idea.

Read the bill, or at least the section in question, and not just your IBD editorials and ignorant characterizations like PalinSpeak.

Or keep defending her and the similar baseless yet emotionally laden provocative crap (socialism gone wild) from the right that is at the very heart of their opposition, as we have come to expect.

How do differing rates of homicide explain higher infant mortality? higher mortality to infectious diseases? Fewer hospital beds per capita available?

---------- Post added at 04:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:13 PM ----------



Data provided throughout this thread have shown how much the state spends on health.

You've descended into absurdity again. I have no idea what you could possibly be trying to say with this. It's just meaningless words.

I can only assume you're referring to the difference in homicide rates. No, I did not factor that in. Instead, I excluded the impact of homicide rates entirely from the US statistics, while not altering the statistics from any other country. It was a fairly simple subtraction problem. Given that homicide tends to be fatal, we can assume that the mortality rates in Canada and the UK are including murders in their numbers.

There is no possible way this data could be weighted more strongly in favour of the US, and the US healthcare system still comes out looking worse.

None of this is even slightly relevant to the discussion. Lifetime statistics are meaningless here, because you're not comparing directly to overall mortality statistics. Homicide rates amongst 18-25 year olds is relevant when viewed in the context of mortality in general amongst 18-25 year olds. It's not relevant when viewing the overall mortality rate. I have no interest in going through this age group by age group, although you're welcome to do so if you really think that will bear any fruit.

Homicide rates are higher in the US than in Canada, and I'm pretty sure they're higher than in the UK as well. I'd be glad to discuss the reasons for that in a separate thread.

None of this has any relevance whatsoever to a discussion regarding healthcare.

Let's move on. Please.

Ace's arguments sometimes reminds me of this:

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8140/...servatards.png

I'm done. Also, I win.

I did read the report. Regarding infant mortality, in the US the adolescent 15-19) fertility rate 41 per 10,000 compared to Canada's 14. A statistic like this can have an impact on infant mortality rates due to simply understanding or not understanding prenatal needs and not the quality of available health care. If a 15 year old girl is embarrassed by her pregnancy, hides it, and doesn't get proper prenatal care the odds of a healthy birth goes down. If she determines she is pregnant early, goes to the doctor, and follows doctors order the odds of a healthy birth goes up. All I have been saying is in order to come to correct conclusions, you have to drill down into the numbers.

In my living will, I want my family to pull the plug. I am more concerned with the quality of life not the duration. Why is that difficult to understand? If I get old and can not think clearly, have sex, eat what I want, function in society, control bodily functions, my wife has been instructed to leave a loaded gun within my reach.

---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:58 PM ----------

I acknowledge the description "death panels" is inappropriate. I have no problem with living wills, or doctors being paid to assist people when they set one up. However, I have a concern outside of this primarily concerning how limited resources get allocated when I generally don't trust Washington bureaucrats. You and Obama can continue to dismiss this, but it won't go away.

---------- Post added at 03:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------

I am not sure what "higher mortality to infectious diseases" stat you refer to, that leads to the conclusion the US health care system is inferior to other developed nations, can you clarify?

Fewer hospital beds per capita is interesting but what about doctors per 10,000 people in the report. The US has 26. Canada has 19. Canada has 101 nurses the US has 94. But the US has 177 "other health care providers", Canada did not show a number. So what do you conclude from that?

After reading the report I conclude that is takes an active imagination to conclude with any degree of real certainty that the health care system of any developed nation is materially better or worse than another.

---------- Post added at 03:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:09 PM ----------

Just for fun, I created my own mortality table in Excel so I could easily do "what ifs". Population 10,000, maximum age 100, death rates systematically increase each decade for the population start with 1 death per year in year 1 ending with 925 deaths in year 100, but 200 deaths per year from 90 to 99. Life expectancy was 73.29. Then simply adding 200 homicide deaths in year 25 (meaning year 100 deaths went down to 725) the life expectancy dropped to 71.79. Homicide rates makes a big enough difference to "move the needle".

You can say "oh, you just made those numbers up", or "thats not relevant" or whatever - but again my point is I understand what I did and the assumptions I made. the WHO report is not clear and I challenge you to clearly explain how they made their adjustments to life expectancy and why.

---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

LOL, This is more accurate:


I like to think I am cutting edge

---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

Not so fast!

You, of course, have to evidence to suggest that babies out of teenage pregnancies are more in danger of dying not because of lack of access, but because of lack of understading...

In fact, the US has higher infant mortality, and mortality for kids under 5, for a variety of reasons that go beyond neonatal care. The US does worse for mortality of children under 5 to pneumonia, for example.
You can't be serious with this crap. You want to live a shorter life? Fine, but so why pay more for it? Ill tell you what, cancel your health insurance and start sending me 100 bucks a month. It will be cheaper than your health insurance, and you will die even earlier.
Besides, this is based on the assumption that access to health care only affects when people die, not their quality of life when alive...



No, it takes an active imagination to try to come up with specific excuses as to why the US does worse in almost every single health statistic, especially when the disparities don't match up with the claim you are making.

As for the infectious diseases part, look up years of life lost to communicable diseases, and you will see how death to infectious diseases affects the life expectancy rate. Oh, and death to infectious diseases in the US declined for most of the 20th century, but started going up again in 1980...



They made no adjustments to their life expectancy table. What you are doing is comparing different variables, why I don't know.

The WHO has exactly the same number for life expectancy as that calculated in the US. The two things you are trying to compare is the data the WHO has on "Healthy life expectancy" and "life expectancy." They are different things, and so to claim that the WHO is trying to mess up the numbers only shows how little you know.


As far as homicides go, look around a bit more. Soon you will find the mortality rate for injuries, which will include not only homicides, but any and all accidents. You will see that in the US the mortality rate for injuries is 47, for Canada 34 and for France 48. In other words, the difference in mortality rate to injuries is not enough to explain the difference in overall mortality rate for Canada, and should actually benefit the US in a comparison to France.

I don't think this country owes me anything, but this is different.

I don't get how or why people are afraid of Universal Healthcare. What is it, ace(and others against it)? Is it not wanting to give tax dollars so that somebody gets a free ride to the hospital? I can understand that, each for his own. It's not my thing, but I get it.

Concerning the "death panels". I don't know what else to call these, so we'll borrow the rhetoric. Really? You believe this shit? Have you no critical thought??? If one of your leaders tells you Obama wants to promote teenage unprotected sex, wouldn't you step back and wonder if they're just trying to get you riled up?
Overall, what I'm trying to understand is, where do you get this information, and why do you trust it? And if it appears erroneous, like maybe the birther movement, why don't you denounce it as such?
For example: I personally don't feel the American auto industry should get tax dollars. I'm not gonna disrupt a news conference or a town hall meeting. If I have real questions about it, I'll wait for a turn to speak. This town hall bullshit is frankly scary, if you believe Obama is the next Hitler then we really don't live in the same reality.
Rb is right, there's no strategy except for shouting and making noise.

I know you guys might have real concerns, but if you do, then voice them appropriately. Obama is not gonna fistfuck your babies and shoot your grandma in the head.

Sometimes, when eating out in public some people just prefer the privacy of the booth seat over the communal tables in the middle.

Alright. Is that the main reason for you? How about everyone else who opposes it?

cost
vagueness in the totality of the 1,000+ page of the bill
additional monstrous beauracracy

well, the obvious question, powerclown, is whether you have the same kind of reaction to, say, current levels of military expenditure, which follow from the fact that the military has never quite gone off cold war status, which makes no sense except insofar as it benefits the patronage system which depends on this state of affairs, and which typically supports republicans.

you know, the center of republican-style military keynesianism.
what's been in place since the reagan period.

Can't you see that some people don't want to be financially responsible for the medical welfare of others, of strangers? That they just want to be able to work and provide for their own families? That some people don't want yet another government regulation over their lives? Some people still believe in the notion of self-determination, of the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Its a principle thing.

---------- Post added at 01:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:47 PM ----------

Is it the obvious question? I'm still trying to make sense of this whole 'green revolution'.

Y'know...I had whole big diatribe going....then I changed my mind. I can simplify it by saying that as one of 20% of undecided Americans, the one thing that would make me embrace a government run healthcare program would be if all government employees, and I mean ALL government employees, from Obama, to my congressman, to the Supreme Court Justices down to the crabby lady at the DMV, were forced to be on the EXACT same program as anyone else. When that happens, I will support Universal Healthcare. Until then, all I have to do is look at the VA to get a glimpse of what I can expect from government run healthcare.

well, if you pitch your objection to large amounts of money flowing through the federal government, it seems reasonable to wonder if it's consistent or not. so from that viewpoint, yes, it's obvious. wanna answer?

As an aside, this seems like another one of those issues where one of the major stumbling blocks is party affiliation as personal identifier. It's a phenomenon I've noticed repeatedly in politics, and in American politics in particular.

Republicans as individuals feel they must oppose universal healthcare, because Republicans as a party oppose it. Republicans as a part oppose it seemingly because Democrats as a party favour it.

And of course the same is true across the aisle, or however the Yanks phrase that.

But the United States of America is the only developed nation that doesn't have universal healthcare to my knowledge, and all of the evidence that I'm able to find at least shows that you're worse for it.

Republicans as a party and as individuals don't seem to be able to reconcile this with their mandated opposition. So we end up talking about tables and murders and horses instead.

This discussion stopped being productive several pages ago.

Are you suggesting that prenatal care is not related to infant mortality? Are you asking me to prove that to you? Are you asking me to prove to you that people at the highest risk of not getting prenatal care are poor teens? Is that what we need to spend time on?

When I read the WHO report I saw mortality for children under 5 as 8 per 10,000 (.08%) compared to Canada as 6 per 10,000 (.06%). Perhaps some consider that alone to be statistically significant enough to draw conclusions, I don't.


I would rather spend money today to keep my cholesterol low, blood pressure low, etc., than to not spend the money and spend extra days at the end of my life in a hospital bed. It is clear on this issue, that you make your choices, I make mine - government should not dictate to you nor me.


I did not see WHO make the value judgment regarding the quality of health care that you seem to make.

and my point is we need to understand the numbers. when comparing two countries on this issue, you have to understand for example what is the impact of AIDS on the numbers, and how does cultural aspects in one country compare to another in this regard outside of health care to determine how the numbers impact health care delivery questions.

Read the report again. They did make adjustment to life expectancy, for something they call "full health" - which you can not explain.

Lets be clear. I am asking for an understanding of their numbers. The numbers are in their report, not mine. Isn't fair to ask? If we are going to make policy decisions based on the report and comparisons to other nations, don't we want to understand the numbers. How do we know their source is not biased? How do they explain that in some categories of statistics some nations show no data?


I was challenged regarding homicides. I was told homicides would make no difference when comparing the US and Canada. I simply went through an exercise to prove, at least to me, that it does make a difference. I am comfortable with the conclusion I have come to until someone proves otherwise, you have not.

No, Im suggesting that teenagers not knowing about prenatal care is not enough to justify the difference, that you have no evidence that infant mortality is higher among teenagers, and that even if it is, that this is caused by not knowing about prenatal care, as opposed to not having access to it (which would be directly related to the quality of US healthcare)


Statistical significance only comes into account when you are talking about samples. When you have population data, you already know that they are statistically significantly different. And to put things in another way, 8 is 33% higher than 6.


You can't really be insisting on this point. First of all, the differences in healthcare do no come solely at the end of one's life. Second of all, the difference include differences in preventive care, where the US does even worse. Third of all, you've yet to mention costs.

"I want to die young, so I want a healthcare system that is less efficient and more costly" has to be the more insane, absurd defense of the American healthcare system I have ever heard.


where did any value judgements come into place?

The point is that YOU don't understand the numbers, and guess randomly at improbably things that could explain differences in care, outcomes, and cost

You can't really be that dense. You really can't. "Healthy life expectancy" is not the same as "life expectancy." Their numbers are exactly the same you will find being used by the CDC. The adjustments they made to "healthy life expectancy" is the same they did for most nations.

Their source is the CDC and the US Census Bureau. Not all nations collect data on everything, hence why there is some missing data.


No one said homicide doesn't make a difference. What was said was that homicides don't explain the difference in mortality rates between the US and Canada.

That's exactly what Obama and friends has been telling everyone except in the end, like all other government run crapola, it will cost a whole lot more than 100 bucks a month for far less than we are receiving now. One only needs to look at the VA to see what things will resemble once the government takes control.

I would buy into this a lot easier if every single legal resident in the US including but not limited to our President and our other elected officials was on the same plan as the average Jane and Joe Blow down the street. Until then I believe this is nothing other than another government scam.

Do you have any actual evidence or estimate for any of the several proposals being circulated? Because so far my problem with Obama's plans is that there really isn't a specific proposal, just a generally stated intention to do something about it.

No I don't and neither does anyone else for that matter. That's the biggest problem with this whole mess. Nobody really has a "plan" but yet they was trying to push the non-plan to a vote before the break. What a bunch of baloney. And then to say everyone that disagrees with this approach is a terrorists or anti-American is bullshit. This "hurry and get something done before the American public figures out what happened" crap both parties played with the "bailout" isn't quite cutting it this time around and thats a good thing. If nothing else all this public outcry will make our elected officials slow down and actually debate something and come up with a good plan rather than something similiar to the bullshit we was all fed on the bailouts. I don't expect anything good to come out of the town hall meetings but maybe when the discussion moves back to the halls of Congress something good will come out of it. And think about it, if the insurance companies and drug companies are behind whatever it is they are contemplating is it really going to be that good for the taxpayer or consumer?

Yes, I get it. I don't share the feeling, but I get it.