Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 41

Thread: Four Interesting Health Care Uh Things

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Four Interesting Health Care... Uh... Things

    Couldn't think of the right noun... Anyway, watch the first (SHORT) video if nothing else.






    A free pdf copy of the must-read The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care: A Citizen's Guide, by Sally C. Pipes may be downloaded 100% legally here.




    A (SHORT) list of facts from the Hoover Institution:

    1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the United Kingdom and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

    2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians. Breast cancer mortality in Canada is 9 percent higher than in the United States, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher, and colon cancer among men is about 10 percent higher.

    3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries. Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit from statin drugs, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

    4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians. Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate, and colon cancer:

    * Nine out of ten middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to fewer than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).

    * Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a Pap smear, compared to fewer than 90 percent of Canadians.

    * More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a prostatespecific antigen (PSA) test, compared to fewer than one in six Canadians (16 percent).

    * Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with fewer than one in twenty Canadians (5 percent).

    5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report “excellent” health (11.7 percent) compared to Canadian seniors (5.8 percent). Conversely, white, young Canadian adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower-income Americans to describe their health as “fair or poor.”

    6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long—sometimes more than a year—to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer. All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada. In Britain, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.

    7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”

    8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians. When asked about their own health care instead of the “health care system,” more than half of Americans (51.3 percent) are very satisfied with their health care services, compared with only 41.5 percent of Canadians; a lower proportion of Americans are dissatisfied (6.8 percent) than Canadians (8.5 percent).

    9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain. An overwhelming majority of leading American physicians identify computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as the most important medical innovations for improving patient care during the previous decade—even as economists and policy makers unfamiliar with actual medical practice decry these techniques as wasteful. The United States has thirty-four CT scanners per million Americans, compared to twelve in Canada and eight in Britain. The United States has almost twenty-seven MRI machines per million people compared to about six per million in Canada and Britain.

    10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations. The top five U.S. hospitals conduct more clinical trials than all the hospitals in any other developed country. Since the mid- 1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to U.S. residents more often than recipients from all other countries combined. In only five of the past thirty-four years did a scientist living in the United States not win or share in the prize. Most important recent medical innovations were developed in the United States.

    Despite serious challenges, such as escalating costs and care for the uninsured, the U.S. health care system compares favorably to those in other developed countries.
    Finally, a truly superb (AND SHORT) article by Thomas Sowell.

    Beware of Bureaucrats' Prescriptions

    As someone who was once rushed to a hospital in the middle of the night, because of taking a medication that millions of people take every day without the slightest problem, I have a special horror of life and death medical decisions being made by bureaucrats in Washington, about patients they have never laid eyes on.

    On another occasion, I was told by a doctor that I would have died if I had not gotten to him in time, after an allergic reaction to eating one of the most healthful foods around. On still another occasion, I was treated with a medication that causes many people big problems and was urged to come back to the hospital immediately if I had a really bad reaction. But I had no reaction at all, went home, felt fine and slept soundly through the night.

    My point is that everybody is different. Millions of children eat peanut butter sandwiches every day but some children can die from eating peanut butter. Some vaccines and medications that save many lives can also kill some people.

    Are decisions made by doctors who have treated the same patient for years to be over-ruled by bureaucrats sitting in front of computer screens in Washington, following guidelines drawn up with the idea of "bringing down the cost of medical care"?

    The idea is even more absurd than the idea that you can add millions of people to a government medical care plan without increasing the costs. It is also more dangerous.

    What is both dangerous and mindless is rushing a massive new medical care scheme through Congress so fast that members of Congress do not even have time to read it before voting on it. Legislation that is far less sweeping in its effects can get months of hearings before Congressional committees, followed by debates in the Senate and the House of Representatives, with all sorts of people voicing their views in the media and in letters to Congress, while ads from people on both sides of the issue appear in newspapers and on television.

    If this new medical scheme is so wonderful, why can't it stand the light of day or a little time to think about it?

    The obvious answer is that the administration doesn't want us to know what it is all about or else we would not go along with it. Far better to say that we can't wait, that things are just too urgent. This tactic worked with whizzing the "stimulus" package through Congress, even though the stimulus package itself has not worked.

    Any serious discussion of government-run medical care would have to look at other countries where there is government-run medical care. As someone who has done some research on this for my book "Applied Economics," I can tell you that the actual consequences of government-controlled medical care is not a pretty picture, however inspiring the rhetoric that accompanies it.

    Thirty thousand Canadians are passing up free medical care at home to go to some other country where they have to pay for it. People don't do that without a reason.

    But Canadians are better off than people in some other countries with government-controlled medical care, because they have the United States right next door, in case their medical problems get too serious to rely on their own system.

    But where are Americans to turn if we become like Canada? Where are we to go when we need better medical treatment than Washington bureaucrats will let us have? Mexico? The Caribbean?

    Many people do not understand that it is not just a question of whether government bureaucrats will agree to pay for particular medical treatments. The same government-control mindset that decides what should and should not be paid for can also decide that the medical technology or pharmaceutical drugs that they control should not be for sale to those who are willing to pay their own money.

    Right now, medications or treatments that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration are medications or treatments that you are not allowed to buy with your own money, no matter how desperate your medical condition, and no matter how many years these medications or treatments may have been used without dire effects in other countries.

    The crucial word is not "care" but "control."

  2. #2
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    3w4 sx/so
    Posts
    24,757
    Mentioned
    91 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Yea, you're probably right.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    A short personal anecdote:

    When I damaged my right hand a few years ago, I only had to wait four or five days for reconstructive surgery that resulted in me getting almost full use of my finger back. The doctor was adamant that the surgery be scheduled as quickly as possible so he could repair the damage before it healed.

    That may sound severe, but it was an elective surgery that I didn't "need". The damage was to my right pinkie. I completely severed a nerve and a tendon that rendered the finger practically useless. That would have fucked up my grip and have made it awkward to reach for anything with my right hand. But since there wasn't a queue of people waiting for a shortage of doctors for treatments prescribed by politicians, I was able to get this elective operation that restored my hand to roughly 85% capacity. Otherwise I'd be stuck at zero. I was even in and out of the hospital in three hours.

    Heck, when I initially went to the ER I only waited 30 minutes, if that. And physical therapy had no waiting list at all.

  4. #4
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I could go on about this forever, but for lack of time, I just want to comment on this:

    7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, and British adults say their health system needs either “fundamental change” or “complete rebuilding.”
    People in Germany are dissatisfied because the system is becoming less people-friendly and fewer things are covered. When I told my mother that there is something like pre-existing conditions, for example, she was mortified. You will have a very hard time finding anyone in Germany who will prefer the American system over the German one. Germans now have to pay about $15 every three months to see their primary physician and you should have heard the uproar when that was implemented.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  5. #5
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    As for anecdotes

    a) I had two elective surgeries in Germany and there was never a waiting period longer than you would have here.
    b) After I was diagnosed with cancer, I had to make a million phone calls to make sure everything is in order for treatment and to not allow the insurance company to find a loophole. It was a nightmare.
    c) Because of said diagnosis and treatment, I will have a hard time finding an insurance company although I am considered cured.
    d) The last time I went to the ER, I waited 4 hours and the last time I accompanied someone to the ER, we waited for 7 hours.
    e) I know many people with symptoms who won't go to the doctor because they don't want to be diagnosed for fear of not getting insurance when they graduate.
    f) A friend's daughter needs very expensive treatment and the insurance company has a lifetime cap of $3 million, which will be reached long before treatment is completed.
    g) People have to wait for life-saving treatment, not because of a waiting list, but because insurance companies deny claims.

    I could go on. The bottom line is that the care you get in the US is top notch and I have no complaints there, but the insurance companies are evil and everyone needs to have insurance. Also, the medical treatment I have received in Germany over the years was very good and I never had to worry about being stuck with a bill. People don't realize that Germany, for example, has a distinctly different system than Canada and the UK and Obama's plan is not going to implement their healthcare systems.

    And Sarah Palin needs to stop making up stories about death panels. Crazy bitch (sorry, I digress).
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  6. #6
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    One more thing:

    This article (foxnews!) contradicts a few things claimed above. And this cannot be blamed on the evil mainstream media this time:

    FOXNews.com - U.S. Trails Others in Health Care Satisfaction - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News

    One-third of Americans told pollsters that the U.S. health care system should be completely rebuilt, far more than residents of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the U.K. Just 16 percent of Americans said that the U.S. health care system needs only minor changes, the lowest number expressing approval among the countries surveyed.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  7. #7
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    what type is Sowell?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    144
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am going to guess NT, leaning towards Gamma.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    I could go on. The bottom line is that the care you get in the US is top notch and I have no complaints there, but the insurance companies are evil and everyone needs to have insurance. Also, the medical treatment I have received in Germany over the years was very good and I never had to worry about being stuck with a bill. People don't realize that Germany, for example, has a distinctly different system than Canada and the UK and Obama's plan is not going to implement their healthcare systems.

    And Sarah Palin needs to stop making up stories about death panels. Crazy bitch (sorry, I digress).
    The problem with Obama's idea is that he is looking to cut costs, but by handing it over to the government, it will inherently raise costs. For instance, treatment for alcoholism is covered by medical care plans (required by law), but for some people the necessity to be covered for alcoholism is very low, so why cover it?
    LIE-Ni, i think, but maybe ILI

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryu View Post
    what type is Sowell?
    LIE, almost certainly.


    Kim: I understand what you're saying, and it's complicated, but basically most/all problems with health care right now are caused by government. The reason insurance companies can get away with doing that is because government meddling raises prices and makes it hard for competitors to exist. No competition is a monopoly, same as government care, but not as powerful.

    About you getting surgery quickly, it was probably because your particular ailment was at the top of a politically directed priority list.
    Last edited by discojoe; 08-11-2009 at 05:00 AM.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another little Sowell snippet that I think Kim should read:

    Politicians are already one of the main reasons why medical insurance is so expensive. Insurance is designed to cover risks but politicians are in the business of distributing largesse. Nothing is easier for politicians than to mandate things that insurance companies must cover, without the slightest regard for how such additional coverage will raise the cost of insurance.

    If insurance covered only those things that most people are most concerned about-- the high cost of a major medical expense-- the price would be much lower than it is today, with politicians piling on mandate after mandate.

    Since insurance covers risks, there is no reason for it to cover annual checkups, because it is known in advance that annual checkups occur once a year. Automobile insurance does not cover oil changes, much less the purchase of gasoline, since these are regular recurrences, not risks.

    But politicians in the business of distributing largesse-- especially with somebody else's money-- cannot resist the temptation to pass laws adding things to insurance coverage. Many of those who are pushing for more government involvement in medical care are already talking about extending insurance coverage to "mental health"-- which is to say, giving shrinks and hypochondriacs a blank check drawn on the federal treasury.

  11. #11
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    A short personal anecdote:

    When I damaged my right hand a few years ago, I only had to wait four or five days for reconstructive surgery that resulted in me getting almost full use of my finger back. The doctor was adamant that the surgery be scheduled as quickly as possible so he could repair the damage before it healed.

    That may sound severe, but it was an elective surgery that I didn't "need". The damage was to my right pinkie. I completely severed a nerve and a tendon that rendered the finger practically useless. That would have fucked up my grip and have made it awkward to reach for anything with my right hand. But since there wasn't a queue of people waiting for a shortage of doctors for treatments prescribed by politicians, I was able to get this elective operation that restored my hand to roughly 85% capacity. Otherwise I'd be stuck at zero. I was even in and out of the hospital in three hours.

    Heck, when I initially went to the ER I only waited 30 minutes, if that. And physical therapy had no waiting list at all.
    To be honest the same happened to my uncle, and he also had to wait just one week, even if we have public healthcare. This said, I think a fully private healthcare with perfect competition will lead to better results than public healthcare, but the transition is a bitch, and anything inbetween is worse then either extreme solution. If there was strict competition, there wouldn't be incentive for the companies to deny claims to ill people, since people would quickly flock to the company that provided a better coverage and a more fair treatment. As it is now, leaving matters of efficiency aside, the US healthcare system looks quite de-humanizing from an european's perspective - obviously we are always dissatisfied about something the government does because it could have been done better, but if asked to choose I'd guess that nobody would really like to change. We do have private clinics if somebody really wants something done quick and for some reason there's a long waiting list.

    By the way, I don't think that in Europe we have "political coverage", so to speak. It's just something that, fortunately, politicians tend to leave rather untouched, or in the hands of the experts. This is probably because, well, everything is supposed to be free, so it's much harder to give priority to something specific.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  12. #12
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    Another little Sowell snippet that I think Kim should read:
    I don't think that quite explains why US healthcare spending is more than double that of countries which have longer average life expentancies.


  13. #13
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Further to Kim's point on healthcare dissatisfaction - in the US, you presumably change your healthcare provider if you are not happy with what you are getting (if you can afford it), while with nationalised healthcare, you pay your taxes to the government - it is easy to see why people in such a situation may be more prone to be dissatisfied with their healthcare, even if it's better than the US healthcare system - perhaps they simply do not realise how good they have it.

    Quote Originally Posted by smilodon View Post
    The problem with Obama's idea is that he is looking to cut costs, but by handing it over to the government, it will inherently raise costs.
    Based on what exactly?

  14. #14
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just briefly because I don't have much time:

    Dj, the surgeries were elective and not a high priority. I don't know anyone who has had to wait for surgery for a long time in Germany, but note that the system is distinctly different than the one in Canada and the UK. And I believe that it is more useful to look at the German healthcare system (which is not perfect by any means) when comparing because it is closer to what the administration has in mind.

    As for Sowell's comment:
    Preventative care can save insurance companies a lot of money. If
    a) people have annual check-ups paid for by insurance
    b) people don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions

    a lot more conditions can be detected early.

    In addition, I believe that the worries about not being able to afford healthcare make people sick. I know that I worry a lot about it.

    The most important thing of the health care bill is that everyone has access to affordable health care INSURANCE and I think that that is absolutely necessary.

    And I agree the healthcare costs in the US are a lot higher than in other countries:

    I had surgery on Thursday afternoon and left the hospital Monday morning. The bill was $23,000 for ONLY the hospital stay. Surgery, tests, etc. were extra. I think that is insane.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You should download that book I linked to and read about the preventative care fallacy. It doesn't lower costs.

  16. #16
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I will, but in the meantime:

    Preventative care saves lives and I really cannot get myself to look at health care as a purely economical enterprise.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    144
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    I don't think that quite explains why US healthcare spending is more than double that of countries which have longer average life expentancies.
    Lets ignore the fact that the US also has a higher murder rate, higher number of fatal car accidents, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    Based on what exactly?
    The fact that the only government program that I ever heard of that was on time or underbudget was the SCOTUS building. Can you imagine how easy it would be for a president to create jobs by taking the health care program and adding on a couple more bureaucratic positions? Since everyone looks to the presidency for everything, why not just create some more jobs, that'll get you re-elected.
    LIE-Ni, i think, but maybe ILI

  18. #18
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smilodon View Post
    Lets ignore the fact that the US also has a higher murder rate, higher number of fatal car accidents, etc.
    Yes, because those two factors could not account for the disparity alone.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ Subterranean: The reasons Americans live shorter lives is because we tend to live more dangerously, eating bad food and generally just not being as conscientious about our health. The high ghetto murder rate may also play a part.

    The reason our spending is so high is because we have better technology and more of it. It's because people are willing to pay the high prices.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    I will, but in the meantime:

    Preventative care saves lives and I really cannot get myself to look at health care as a purely economical enterprise.
    I think most people would agree with you, which is why they spend so much of their own money on top quality American medical care. I agree that preventative care is good, and I'm only disputing the argument that it somehow lowers costs. One thing it does is cause people to live longer, and as they get older health care costs skyrocket. I have a 99 year old grandfather who's only alive because of medicare, but I wouldn't be surprised if his health care for the past thirty years has cost the government well over a million dollars.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    As an example of the outright lies that the White House is telling, check out this video of Linda Douglass, Communications Director for the "White House Office of Health Care Reform". She clearly states that talk of rationing under Obamacare is "absolutely not true".

    There is NO WAY to freely provide something as expensive as medical care without rationing in some form. The likely explanation is that they are rationing, but not calling it rationing. So when a bureaucrat makes a treatment priority list -- thus rationing care to those at the top of the list -- he can say that he's merely making sure that those who need care the most urgently are treated first. Sounds good, except that this is just one more form of central planning, and central planners can't accurately make these decisions.


  21. #21
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Sowell

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    LIE, almost certainly.
    Just reading his bio on answers.com made gamma NT seem clear enough. He struck me as ILI from the bio, but perhaps LIE.






    He sounds idealistic and intellectual. His idealism comes by excluding Fe and Si, and believing Te, Ni, and Se have all the answers. I don't really see his policies as having any more real impact than one of those super liberal 'everybody make nice and love each other' people; his idealism is 'everybody pull yourselves up by your bootstraps' (generalization). He seems to be a good figure, or prophet, that people of a similar conservative in mindset can refer to, and derive hope or ideological support from. I get the feeling that he tries to address things empirically that perhaps are unable to be addressed empirically.

    I agree with some of his stuff, but, his approach seems somewhat fanciful. It is the same feeling I get when I come across anybody who is so vested in their own quadra values, so to say, and enjoys very much, even takes pride in, neglecting or ignoring other aspects of reality that are 'unvalued' or 'looked down upon'.

    He makes a strong case for having an SF type for a dual. I still have a slight leaning to DJ's activity partner, rather than dual. I'd have to see more of him.


    PS:
    His response to the welfare question by saying something about the woman talking about the issue 'in the middle' - it seems very Ni. His response seemed unconcerned with that "S" reality factor. The opening moral hazard argument by him against 'welfare' or subsidizing schools makes sense, sure, but he doesn't really provide an answer. I agree that rewarding people for failure is not a good thing, but I'm curious as to what he really suggests, I'm not seeing a solution provided. I think the woman's response about expectations was not very good.

  22. #22
    UDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East Coast West Coast Dirty South
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    14,826
    Mentioned
    33 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    The most important thing of the health care bill is that everyone has access to affordable health care INSURANCE and I think that that is absolutely necessary.

    And I agree the healthcare costs in the US are a lot higher than in other countries:

    I had surgery on Thursday afternoon and left the hospital Monday morning. The bill was $23,000 for ONLY the hospital stay. Surgery, tests, etc. were extra. I think that is insane.
    It is insane, and I agree about the insurance bit.


    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    @ Subterranean: The reasons Americans live shorter lives is because we tend to live more dangerously, eating bad food and generally just not being as conscientious about our health. The high ghetto murder rate may also play a part.
    Land of the Fatass

    I think most people would agree with you, which is why they spend so much of their own money on top quality American medical care. I agree that preventative care is good, and I'm only disputing the argument that it somehow lowers costs. One thing it does is cause people to live longer, and as they get older health care costs skyrocket. I have a 99 year old grandfather who's only alive because of medicare, but I wouldn't be surprised if his health care for the past thirty years has cost the government well over a million dollars.
    I'm curious though, are you against your grandfather getting medicare/etc? Or do you support that kind of thing? I don't understand yet.


    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    There is NO WAY to freely provide something as expensive as medical care without rationing in some form. The likely explanation is that they are rationing, but not calling it rationing. So when a bureaucrat makes a treatment priority list -- thus rationing care to those at the top of the list -- he can say that he's merely making sure that those who need care the most urgently are treated first. Sounds good, except that this is just one more form of central planning, and central planners can't accurately make these decisions.
    Yes.


    For the record, I'm still trying to figure out what should be done, or aimed for.
    What bothers me most right now is the political arguing and the yahoo factor that is rising. I'm seeing less and less discussion about the matter, especially on most of the TV stations most US people are going to watch (not that such is surprising). But, I don't think it's healthy for the US to have such nonsense linger on.


    So perhaps that's something that can be started here, or at least for myself:

    1. What does the bill actually say (what is the most reliable summary of it as I'm not going to be able to read all the pages of the bill)
    2. What are the actual pros and cons of the bill
    3. What should be advocated for, in terms of health care reform, and why?

    A lot of number 3 is subjective, sure. But 1 and 2 are simply factual, right?
    So, any suggestions?

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    144
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What bothers me most right now is the political arguing and the yahoo factor that is rising. I'm seeing less and less discussion about the matter, especially on most of the TV stations most US people are going to watch (not that such is surprising). But, I don't think it's healthy for the US to have such nonsense linger on.
    I think the problem is that when Obama and the Democrats came in they promised to be transparent about legislation and government action. Among other things they promised to post bills online for no less than 72 hours. The stimulus was not passed in this fashion, and it was moderately unpopular. Then in July, the House passed the Cap and Trade bill. 12 hrs before it was voted on an amendment running a couple hundred pages in length was attached, basically not allowing any debate on the bill. And this bill was wildly unpopular, of particular importance was its unpopularity in districts represented by vulnerable 2010 democrats. Now few voters think their representative actually represents them, and the administration and congress try and ram the healthcare bill through the House. In my opinion the entirety of the blame for this lies at the feet of Obama, Rahm, and Pelosi.


    What should be advocated for, in terms of health care reform, and why?
    In my opinion, keeping the government as far away as possible from health insurance. Here is a good article on it from Florida's reforms. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121201589150427551.html
    LIE-Ni, i think, but maybe ILI

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm curious though, are you against your grandfather getting medicare/etc? Or do you support that kind of thing? I don't understand yet.
    I'm in favor of people who can't take care of themselves receiving some form of free care, so that would include mentality and physically handicapped people and people who live longer than they planned and run out of retirement money (i.e., my grandfather).

    I don't support the federal government doing this, though, since it is illegal for them to do so. State governments are the ones that should care for the disabled.

    For the record, I'm still trying to figure out what should be done, or aimed for.
    What bothers me most right now is the political arguing and the yahoo factor that is rising. I'm seeing less and less discussion about the matter, especially on most of the TV stations most US people are going to watch (not that such is surprising). But, I don't think it's healthy for the US to have such nonsense linger on.
    The solution is simple. Get the government out, and watch prices come down. You'll finally be able to get that $200 a year catastrophe policy, and doctor visits will go down to $50-$80. The price of medications will go down once the FDA is dissolved.

    What does the bill actually say (what is the most reliable summary of it as I'm not going to be able to read all the pages of the bill)
    It's a thousand pages long, and almost none of the congress has actually read it. I doubt Obama's even read it. The gist of it is that it creates a government monopoly of the insurance market.

    What are the actual pros and cons of the bill
    Pros: None.

    Cons: Crappy health care.

    What should be advocated for, in terms of health care reform, and why?
    No government, because then everyone will be able to afford insurance. You might have to stop subsidizing poverty for poor people to get jobs and pay for it, though.

  25. #25
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    It does not create a government monopoly - it creates an insurance plan sponsored by the government because there is no other way to make sure everyone can be insured because insurance companies won't take the risk.

    You can argue all you want about the costs of this transition and I agree that that might be a problem. But:

    1) health care won't be rationed (at least not according to the bill)
    2) Neither Palin's kid nor anyone else will have to appear before a death panel. There will be counseling sessions about long term care, health proxys and such things which are quite sensible to talk about

    Ironically, there is a cap on health care NOW in form of

    a) lifetime caps
    b) exorbitant co-payments
    c) inability to get insurance
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  26. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It does not create a government monopoly - it creates an insurance plan sponsored by the government because there is no other way to make sure everyone can be insured because insurance companies won't take the risk.
    You don't think that forcing private competing companies out of business by offering a free alternative to their product constitutes a monopoly? It's clearly monopolistic.

    You can argue all you want about the costs of this transition and I agree that that might be a problem. But:

    1) health care won't be rationed (at least not according to the bill)
    Ugh. There is no way to offer free health care to everyone in the US without rationing. It doesn't matter what the bill says. The bill was written by people who don't understand basic economics, and I'm not exaggerating in the least. You pass this bill, you ration medical care. Prove me wrong and I'll buy you a cruise ticket.

    2) Neither Palin's kid nor anyone else will have to appear before a death panel. There will be counseling sessions about long term care, health proxys and such things which are quite sensible to talk about
    I never mentioned the death panel crap because it seemed like ENTp-esque conspiratorial nonsense, like all of the Obama birth drama (though I think that showing proof of birth should be mandatory for presidential candidates).

    Ironically, there is a cap on health care NOW in form of

    a) lifetime caps
    b) exorbitant co-payments
    c) inability to get insurance
    Yes, but these are all things that are caused by the government, and government solutions will only make things worse.

  27. #27
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    The government will not offer free insurance. Read the bill or at least a summary.

    And don't get me started on the birther bullshit. The Hawaiian document is legitimate. And the forged Kenyan birth certificate is a bad joke.

    I don't have much time right now, but more later.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    144
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I have read summary after summary after summary. They all say the government will offer a public option. Now, as for reading the bill, it is about 1000 pages in length, and written in some of the most horribly convoluted language in existence. And of course the government won't offer FREE insurance. They will offer insurance, but they will pay for it by passing more taxes, great idea in a recession. though Congress probably will anyway because of the $1.3 trillion deficit that we have had this year.



    With respect to the birther "bullshit", Obama has not released his long form birth certificate, the one that actually matters. However, since he promised transparency, it is awfully hypocritical of him to hide a one page document from the public that contains no embarrassing information.
    LIE-Ni, i think, but maybe ILI

  29. #29
    marmalade4sunrise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    One more thing:

    This article (foxnews!) contradicts a few things claimed above. And this cannot be blamed on the evil mainstream media this time:

    FOXNews.com - U.S. Trails Others in Health Care Satisfaction - Health News | Current Health News | Medical News
    I find the fact that you don't consider Fox News "evil mainstream media" sadly hilarious.

  30. #30
    marmalade4sunrise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    7
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    The government will not offer free insurance. Read the bill or at least a summary.

    And don't get me started on the birther bullshit. The Hawaiian document is legitimate. And the forged Kenyan birth certificate is a bad joke.

    I don't have much time right now, but more later.
    Oh boy they're talking about this here, too?

    I guess the National Enquirer has to sell conspiracy theory papers to someone.

  31. #31
    Kim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    TIM
    IEE e7 783 sx so
    Posts
    6,857
    Mentioned
    380 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade4sunrise View Post
    I find the fact that you don't consider Fox News "evil mainstream media" sadly hilarious.
    Fox News is just plain evil. :wink:

    As for the birther thing: people such as Orly whatshername have claimed that Obama is an ILLEGAL ALIEN! And forged a Kenyan birth certificate that states that he was born in Mombasa in the Republic of Kenya BEFORE Kenya was a republic AND when Mombasa was still part of Zanzibar.
    “Let us forget with generosity those who cannot love us”
    ― Pablo Neruda

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    144
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade4sunrise View Post
    Oh boy they're talking about this here, too?

    I guess the National Enquirer has to sell conspiracy theory papers to someone.
    Actually, it started with Clinton, but then the right got a hold if it.
    LIE-Ni, i think, but maybe ILI

  33. #33
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kim View Post
    Fox News is just plain evil. :wink:
    Unfair and unbalanced.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  34. #34
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,632
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryu View Post
    Just reading his bio on answers.com made gamma NT seem clear enough. He struck me as ILI from the bio, but perhaps LIE.

    He sounds idealistic and intellectual. His idealism comes by excluding Fe and Si, and believing Te, Ni, and Se have all the answers. I don't really see his policies as having any more real impact than one of those super liberal 'everybody make nice and love each other' people; his idealism is 'everybody pull yourselves up by your bootstraps' (generalization). He seems to be a good figure, or prophet, that people of a similar conservative in mindset can refer to, and derive hope or ideological support from. I get the feeling that he tries to address things empirically that perhaps are unable to be addressed empirically.

    I agree with some of his stuff, but, his approach seems somewhat fanciful. It is the same feeling I get when I come across anybody who is so vested in their own quadra values, so to say, and enjoys very much, even takes pride in, neglecting or ignoring other aspects of reality that are 'unvalued' or 'looked down upon'.
    That's what I also think about him.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  35. #35
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    NHS branded 'evil' and 'Orwellian' by high-level US politicians | Mail Online

    Republican Senator Chuck Grassley claimed that Democrat Senator Edward Kennedy, who is being treated for a brain tumour, would be left to die in Britain because he is 77.

    And the Investor's Business Daily said in an editorial: 'People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.'

    They had to correct the piece when it was pointed out that the physicist was born, lives and works in the UK.

    Mr Hawking said: 'I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS.'
    Whoops!

    lol, and it's amusing for the NHS to be called "evil" and "Orwellian" without making it clear whether they were referring to Orwell's novels or to his actual personal views.

  36. #36
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    @ Subterranean: The reasons Americans live shorter lives is because we tend to live more dangerously, eating bad food and generally just not being as conscientious about our health. The high ghetto murder rate may also play a part.

    The reason our spending is so high is because we have better technology and more of it. It's because people are willing to pay the high prices.
    Obesity in the UK isn't all that much behind the USA....I did point out that the UK spent about half in terms of GDP% compared to the US on healthcare, and yet had a longer life expectancy...the UK isn't even a prime example.

    I doubt people are willing to pay high prices, and I have heard of American doctors basically overusing their technology as an easier way to make money, which the results don't justify.

    Also, a recent survey has shown that two-thirds of American healthcare professionals are in favour of the nationalisation of healthcare - which is of course is a greater percentage than can be accounted for on the basis of party lines.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    144
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    NHS branded 'evil' and 'Orwellian' by high-level US politicians | Mail Online


    Whoops!

    lol, and it's amusing for the NHS to be called "evil" and "Orwellian" without making it clear whether they were referring to Orwell's novels or to his actual personal views.
    Hawking is also a high value intellectual (worth more).
    LIE-Ni, i think, but maybe ILI

  38. #38
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,938
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smilodon View Post
    Hawking is also a high value intellectual (worth more).
    The NHS doesn't actually discriminate on the grounds of intellect, as they treat the condition, not the patient. He may be worth more to you, of course.

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    144
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    The NHS doesn't actually discriminate on the grounds of intellect, as they treat the condition, not the patient. He may be worth more to you, of course.
    I have a great aunt in England who needed a hip replacement, but was denied, or wait longer than normal, it in the NHS because she was too old. So she went and got it done privately. The point is that the NHS has to ration and in order to ration you have to figure out who is worth more. Hawking, with a higher intellectual ability, is worth more, so naturally rationed care puts him above other people.
    LIE-Ni, i think, but maybe ILI

  40. #40
    heath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,722
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smilodon View Post
    I have a great aunt in England who needed a hip replacement, but was denied, or wait longer than normal, it in the NHS because she was too old. So she went and got it done privately. The point is that the NHS has to ration and in order to ration you have to figure out who is worth more. Hawking, with a higher intellectual ability, is worth more, so naturally rationed care puts him above other people.
    cool, in america we call this rationing 'the having of money.'
    asd

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •