People who want Public Health Care. BEWARE!

[political_debater]

Some facts you probably didn't know about the so-called "Universal Healthcare" system people wanna put upon us. The most common thing critics of our "U.S. Health Care" system like to say first is that 16%(44 million) of the population are uninsured. Quite a bit of reading, but for anyone who wants public-healthcare might wanna read this before they think they want goverment-run-healthcare. SO, PLEASE READ?

And for anyone who wants to say they have great care in Canada and Europe is just like me saying I have great care here in the U.S. put together. So, lets try not to challenge who has the best healthcare system.

Some of the most favorite statistics of people for socialized-medicine is "Life Expectancy" and "Infant Mortality" of our country. Which are actually misleading when it come to healthcare.

Look at this link about "Life Expectancy", "Infant Mortality" and money we spend on healthcare and you'll see the truth.
Don't Fall Prey to Propaganda: Life Expectancy and Infant Mortality are Unreliable Measures for Comparing the U.S. Health Care System to Others
I guess, it doesn't matter to point out that our "Cancer Survival Rate" is the HIGHEST in this country in the whole world, because that just contradicts these pro-government-beaurocrat-healthcare advocates.

And the uninsured? OH, NO... WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE INSURANCE! Really? Well, look at these links and you'll get a pretty good idea about the uninsured!
Uninsured Population Overstated - by Conrad F. Meier - Health Care News
Marginal Revolution: Who are the uninsured?
Medskool: The Uninsured & Universal Healthcare: The figures (Part 1)
You could call it a conservative perspective, but they do point out the facts.

Some more links to facts on public-healthcare
10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care - Brief Analysis #649
Pajamas Media » Health Care Reform vs. Universal Health Care


And if anyone didn't understand the concept of what they just read, then we have plenty of care for anyone who needs a brain-implant, and it's line free.

And here's a couple of links to a debate about "Universal Health Care" on youtube
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E427240F927D6696]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/ame]
The audience voted for having public-healthcare at the end, but what do expect from a liberal New York, Manhattan audience.

Some links to some news coverage in Canada on healthcare
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrQWadE2YpE&feature=related"]YouTube - Canada's socialist heathcare not healthy.[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1TEsK0HCAo&feature=related"]YouTube - Canadians to Americans: Don't make your healthcare like ours[/ame]

 

[Donc]

What a bunch of BS; this only shows that the wingers are getting desperate in there opposition to single payer (efficient healthcare).

This post is the last screeching, of a failing Republican party and their corporate backers in health insurance industries, a last-ditch effort at holding onto the last vestige of power by scaring and lying to the American people.

It shows what hypocrites they are for all of the people in this country to see. They are afraid if this succeeds they will be at the least they will be marginalized, at the worst it will mean the end of the Republican Party.


Welcome to the community of marginalized, say hi to Ralph Nader.:2wave:

 

[political_debater]

You still didn't explain what's wrong with this forum. What's a lie?

 

[Donc]

You still didn't explain what's wrong with this forum. What's a lie?

When you to put up something besides some links I will be glad to debate you on it. I hope you have something that is current, getting tired of all of the regurgitated talking points, especially in regards to what has happened today.

Oh, by the way welcome to DP. :2wave:

 

[sam_w]

When you to put up something besides some links I will be glad to debate you on it. I hope you have something that is current, getting tired of all of the regurgitated talking points, especially in regards to what has happened today.

Oh, by the way welcome to DP. :2wave:

I would go further than donc and suggest, for me at least, it is the quality, credibility, and independence of the sources you cite. I could go to some left leaning blogs and sites and pull articles out all day. I do not for two reasons. The first is they simply are going to be no more credible than any source cited from a right wing blog or site. The same goes with the issue of independence. Second, partisan sites for the most part are going to parse the news to their style. Does not mean there is direction lies or distortions, but there does leave the possibility that not all information is provided. In terms of quality, briefs summarizing without citation of credible sources adds absolutely nothing to a debate.

Believe it or not there are a good number of people that simply are not as partisan as most. There are also a good number who seek the truth over ideology, and others who just simply do not care to override facts that present an argument counter to their ideological beliefs. Nobody is without bias, but some are just better than others in recognizing and admitting it.

Granted using the internet these days is difficult to find and easily link credible sources, especially since the rise of partisan blogs and personal sites. But that doesn't mean you still can not find good sources. Remember the key is NEVER find the source that fits ones argument, but rather the source that simply presents the truth.

 

[political_debater]

Let's just start by saying that critics of our U.S. Healthcare system are putting higher "infant mortality" and higher "mortality" statistics to justify there excuse that we need universal Healthcare system.

They put our overall higher mortality rates stats,of people who died in the U.S. such as getting killed at the border because drug violence there, we have three times higher car accidents than that of the U.K. and people who die of diseases that nobody has a cure for, and they throw these statistics as if it's solely because of our healthcare system.

We have higher infant mortality rate because government determines what life is(example, babies aren't considered humans when they get aborted) but European babies die earlier(before or after they're born) because they don't live as long as babies in the U.S., so therefore they don't count as life in Europe but considered in the U.S. because they live atleast six months longer. Look at the link about healthcare at the Intelligence Square debate where one opponent explains thisin a better sentence.

But they never mention that we have the highest cancer survival rate than any other country with less or more population.

So ,I don't think it has do with it being conservative outlet, but the question is why do the critics keep this information out?

Talk about leaving some thing out.

 

[Donc]

Let's just start by saying that critics of our U.S. Healthcare system are putting higher "infant mortality" and higher "mortality" statistics to justify there excuse that we need universal Healthcare system.

They put our overall higher mortality rates stats,of people who died in the U.S. such as getting killed at the border because drug violence there, we have three times higher car accidents than that of the U.K. and people who die of diseases that nobody has a cure for, and they throw these statistics as if it's solely because of our healthcare system.

We have higher infant mortality rate because government determines what life is(example, babies aren't considered humans when they get aborted) but European babies die earlier(before or after they're born) because they don't live as long as babies in the U.S., so therefore they don't count as life in Europe but considered in the U.S. because they live atleast six months longer. Look at the link about healthcare at the Intelligence Square debate where one opponent explains thisin a better sentence.

But they never mention that we have the highest cancer survival rate than any other country with less or more population.

So ,I don't think it has do with it being conservative outlet, but the question is why do the critics keep this information out?

Talk about leaving some thing out.

Your right, it is a rather meaningless statistic when you think about it, I prefer this one. Life expectancy at birth where United States is wedged in between number 48, Finland and number 50, Albania.

What’s the deciding factor in the 48 countries ahead of us? Gasp… universal Healthcare.

Life Expectancy At Birth male by country. Definition, graph and map.

 

[political_debater]

Again, countries vary what they consider life.
we have a better care-facility(as stated in the debate), we let high risk babies live longer. This pushes up the infant mortality because they let at risk babies be born and don't live long, anyhow. Most of those high risk babies in Europe don't live and are not counted in the infant mortality rate.

Now, what's your explanation for higher cancer survival rate?

And why doesn't the government use "Medicaid" for poor people, that's what it's for, isn't it? And it's also controlled by the government just the way you like.








a little more on infant mortality because certain statistics don't show everything.

Infant mortality is also impacted by many of the same factors that affect life expectancy -- genetics, GDP per capita, diet, etc. -- all of which are factors beyond the control of a health care system. Another factor that makes U.S. infant mortality rates higher than other nations is that we have far more pregnant women living alone; in other nations pregnant women are more likely to be either be married or living with a partner. Pregnant women in such households are more likely to receive prenatal care than pregnant women living on their own.

Perhaps the biggest drawback of infant mortality is that it is measured too inconsistently across nations to be a useful measure. Under United Nations' guidelines, countries are supposed to count any infant showing any sign of life as a "live birth." While the United States follows that guideline, many other nations do not. For example, Switzerland does not count any infant born measuring less than 12 inches, while France and Belgium do not count any infant born prior to 26 weeks. In short, many other nations exclude many high-risk infants from their infant mortality statistics, making their infant mortality numbers look better than they really are.

another link hey, even you don't wanna believe it they sure put alot more information in it.
Free Market Cure - The Myths of Single-Payer Health Care

 

[Baralis]

And why doesn't the government use "Medicaid" for poor people, that's what it's for, isn't it? And it's also controlled by the government just the way you like.

And many Doctors will not accept medicaid because medicaid caps payments on alot of services. Will the government run insurance be any different? I doubt it.

 

[political_debater]

And many Doctors will not accept medicaid because medicaid caps payments on alot of services. Will the government run insurance be any different? I doubt it.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your question, do mean "add payment" when you use the phrase "caps payment" and what do you mean when you say "Will the government run insurance be any different?" does this mean your for or against a so-called public option?

 

[Baralis]

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your question, do mean "add payment" when you use the phrase "caps payment" and what do you mean when you say "Will the government run insurance be any different?" does this mean your for or against a so-called public option?

I am against government run health care in any form.

Medicaid currently caps what it will pay for any given treatment and these caps are considered on the low side in many instances. So for example I want to see Dr. Whoever and he charges more for a office call then medicaid will allow his office will reject you.

I am afraid that the government and their claim "to lower costs" with their insurance will in fact continue the practice of capping payments. So people will be left being treated by the lower end medical community.

 

[political_debater]

I'm sorry I kinda got confused. It's amazing how many people think that government-healthcare is gonna insure everyone, this sounds great, but there's always something called facts and common sense.

Oh, and by the way, I just saw Van Greta Susteren on on her show on Fox News, that showed a secret camera of Federal social-security admin and employees dancing and having a great time USING TAXPAYER MONEY.

HAH, SPEAKING OF LAVISH AND GREEDY.

 

[Donc]

Again, countries vary what they consider life.
we have a better care-facility(as stated in the debate), we let high risk babies live longer. This pushes up the infant mortality because they let at risk babies be born and don't live long, anyhow. Most of those high risk babies in Europe don't live and are not counted in the infant mortality rate.



Now, what's your explanation for higher cancer survival rate?

The infant mortality has been settled in a previous post, what’s with the cancer question? I thought this thread was about healthcare.

And why doesn't the government use "Medicaid" for poor people, that's what it's for, isn't it? And it's also controlled by the government just the way you like.

Damn, what’s with you? You start one post on healthcare and start rambling on about everything but healthcare. You want to bitch about Medicaid start a thread about it, I thought we were discussing healthcare not Medicaid’s faults.

a little more on infant mortality because certain statistics don't show everything.

Infant mortality is also impacted by many of the same factors that affect life expectancy -- genetics, GDP per capita, diet, etc. -- all of which are factors beyond the control of a health care system. Another factor that makes U.S. infant mortality rates higher than other nations is that we have far more pregnant women living alone; in other nations pregnant women are more likely to be either be married or living with a partner. Pregnant women in such households are more likely to receive prenatal care than pregnant women living on their own.

Perhaps the biggest drawback of infant mortality is that it is measured too inconsistently across nations to be a useful measure. Under United Nations' guidelines, countries are supposed to count any infant showing any sign of life as a "live birth." While the United States follows that guideline, many other nations do not. For example, Switzerland does not count any infant born measuring less than 12 inches, while France and Belgium do not count any infant born prior to 26 weeks. In short, many other nations exclude many high-risk infants from their infant mortality statistics, making their infant mortality numbers look better than they really are.

another link hey, even you don't wanna believe it they sure put alot more information in it.

Goood grief more of the infant mortality.:roll:

 

[political_debater]

Yeah, you showed me a link to infant-mortality andI thought maybe I could post something about that subject an another way for you to understand. Yeah, back to healthcare.

And I yet to hear your explanation about HIGHER CANCER SURVIVAL RATE.

And I yet to see evidence of someone who dies because of healthcare, aswell.

 

[Donc]

Yeah, you showed me a link to infant-mortality andI thought maybe I could post something about that subject an another way for you to understand. Yeah, back to healthcare.

No, I didn’t show you a link to infant mortality, the link was about “Life expectancy at birth” and it shows that the life expectancy at birth of a male, in the United States, was 75.29 years compared to the rest of the developed world we ranked 49.So my premise was that the statistic of infant mortality wasn’t relevant to our debating healthcare. For instance, Australia, 79.16 years,Japan,76.16,Canada,78.65,most of the countries ahead of us have Universal Healthcare. Coincidence?

And I yet to hear your explanation about HIGHER CANCER SURVIVAL RATE.

I’ll give you the points on cancer but tell me, even with the HIGHER CANCER SURVIVAL RATE why are we dieing five years before residents of Singapore, two and a half years before the Swiss, and our northern neighbor, the Canucks out live us by three years?

And I yet to see evidence of someone who dies because of healthcare, aswell.

No, but I have shown plenty of evidence of the rest of the industrialized world out living us because they have better healthcare . :2wave:

 

[political_debater]

Sorry, a little mix up, here's what you need.

The reality is that they throw the whole life statistic into the health category, which means they throw in the percentage of deaths caused by car car/motorcycle accidents(triple the accidents in UK), murders including pervasive drug war violence at our borders, and Obesity of people who die from diseases and such. LOOK AT SIMILAR STATISTICS ON LIFE-EXPECTANCY NOT RELaTING TO HEALTHCARE, IT'LL COME UP WITH THE SAME THING. But they just can't simply explain that we have the HIGHEST cancer-survival-rate. Maybe, because it contradicts there criticism.

Again, this is explained in the debate at the youtube link above

An it seems you still can't give me evidence on people who have died because of our healthcare system.

I can give plenty of evidence of people who have suffered under a public healthcare system in Britain, first, you have to ask.

And do you even know the truth behind the uninsured?

 

[RightinNYC]

Your right, it is a rather meaningless statistic when you think about it, I prefer this one. Life expectancy at birth where United States is wedged in between number 48, Finland and number 50, Albania.

What’s the deciding factor in the 48 countries ahead of us? Gasp… universal Healthcare.

Life Expectancy At Birth male by country. Definition, graph and map.

Life expectancy at birth has far less to do with quality of health care and far more to do with:

1) Murders
2) Other accidental deaths
3) Large numbers of racial minorities

CARPE DIEM: Beyond Those Health Care Numbers: US Looks Good

The US is actually one of the best countries when corrected:

 

[political_debater]

I just thought I could ask a few questions about healthcare and I'm very very disappointed that people just think it'll solve all our problems just by bringing it all into one entity, the "Government">

 

[political_debater]

And I just doubled checked the life statistics, and Cuba is below the U.S.. I could have sworn that Michael Moore said Cuba had a better healthcare system.

 

[Donc]

Life expectancy at birth has far less to do with quality of health care and far more to do with:

1) Murders
2) Other accidental deaths
3) Large numbers of racial minorities

CARPE DIEM: Beyond Those Health Care Numbers: US Looks Good

The US is actually one of the best countries when corrected:

Fascinating isnt it, that improved health outcomes in the over 65 group that coincides when they are covered by Medicare, that low-cost socialist program.

 

[political_debater]

Here's a trick question. Are there anyone in the U.S. fleeing to another country for better healthcare?

 

[sam_w]

I have already posted extensively in other posts, so here is some of the relevant posts.

In regards to public/popular opinion:

CBS June 20th, 2009 Poll
Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option

A clear majority of Americans -- 72 percent -- support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. Most also think the government would do a better job than private industry at keeping down costs and believe that the government should guarantee health care for all Americans.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Survey (PDF)

76% said it was "Extremely" or "Quite" important to give a choice of BOTH a public plan administered by the federal government, and a private plan for their health insurance. -summarized

Bloomberg.com: News

Sixty-nine percent of Americans support creation of a government-run health plan to compete with private insurance companies, a new poll found.

In addition, 52 percent of those surveyed by Hamden, Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University said such a plan would keep the private insurance companies honest. Thirty-two percent disagreed. Twenty-six percent said they opposed a government-run insurance program. Some health-care overhaul plans proposed by Democrats in Congress would include a government-run plan, while Republicans are leading the fight against such a program.

In regards to opposition:

Washington Post
Familiar Players in Health Bill Lobbying

The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.

That is $1.4 million a day to protect THEIR interests, not yours.

Bill Moyer's recent interview with Wendell Potter, former executive at CIGNA (Full transcript here)

“The industry has always tried to make Americans think that government-run systems are the worst thing that could possibly happen to them, that if you even consider that, you’re heading down on the slippery slope towards socialism. So they have used scare tactics for years and years and years, to keep that from happening. If there were a broader program like our Medicare program, it could potentially reduce the profits of these big companies. So that is their biggest concern.”

That we shouldn’t fear government involvement in our health care system. That there is an appropriate role for government, and it’s been proven in the countries that were in that movie.

You know, we have more people who are uninsured in this country than the entire population of Canada. And that if you include the people who are underinsured, more people than in the United Kingdom. We have huge numbers of people who are also just a lay-off away from joining the ranks of the uninsured, or being purged by their insurance company, and winding up there.

And another thing is that the advocates of reform or the opponents of reform are those who are saying that we need to be careful about what we do here, because we don’t want the government to take away your choice of a health plan. It’s more likely that your employer and your insurer is going to switch you from a plan that you’re in now to one that you don’t want. You might be in the plan you like now.

But chances are, pretty soon, you’re going to be enrolled in one of these high deductible plans in which you’re going to find that much more of the cost is being shifted to you than you ever imagined. “

In regards to world comparison and ranking:

The World Health Organization ranks us 37th - summary here

OECD's own survey that clearly shows the vast gap between the U.S. and other nations in our costs. Or consider the World Health Organization's comparison where we ranked 37th.We are behind Colombia, Morocco, Costa Rica, and Dominica. Not exactly a world class system.

The 2009 OECD Health Data 2009 (PDF)
Do look at the pretty graphs they have, for it clearly shows just how enormously bloated our system has become.

Total health spending accounted for 16.0% of GDP in the United States in 2007, by far the highest share in the OECD. Following the United States were France, Switzerland and Germany, which allocated respectively 11.0%, 10.8% and 10.4% of their GDP to health. The OECD average was 8.9% in 2007.

The United States also ranks far ahead of other OECD countries in terms of total health spending per capita, with spending of 7,290 USD (adjusted for purchasing power parity), almost two-and-a-half times greater than the OECD average of 2,964 USD in 2007. Norway follows, with spending of 4,763 USD per capita, then Switzerland with spending of 4,417 USD per capita. Differences in health spending across countries may reflect differences in price, volume and quality of medical goods and services consumed.

Now look at the CBO's own forecast:
The Budget and Economic Outlook:
Fiscal Years 2008 to 2017

Or look at the Dept of HHS Fiscal Year 2010 Budget in Brief. 2008 we spent $447b, and by 2010 we will spend $510b.

CBO's Accounting for Sources of Projected Growth in Federal Spending on Medicare and Medicaid


In regards to our current "coverage" and costs.:

We have estimated 50 million uninsured, with another 25 million underinsured. That is 75 million, out of a country of 304 million. That is a problem you are already paying for.

CNN
Underinsured Americans: Cost to you

Americans already shouldering the cost of millions of people without health insurance should brace for a double-whammy: a surge in the number of the "underinsured," or consumers who have some but not enough coverage.

The problem, according to health care industry experts, is that the government and those with employer-based plans will have to pick up the tab as more Americans are unable to pay their entire medical bill

Read Richard Cohen's editorial in the Washington Post
'Socialized Medicine? Bring It On

The ongoing health-care debate is complex -- not as interesting as Michael Jackson or Sarah Palin. But in deciding what to do and who to support in the current attempt to reform health care, don't rely on insurance industry propaganda, but on your own experience. Recall the last time you went to the emergency room and ask yourself whether the government could possibly do a worse job. If the answer is yes, you might need medical attention more than you realize.

The entire notion or argument that a government bureaucrat will stand in the way is laughable, if not downright idiotic. You already HAVE a bureaucrat standing in the way between you and your doctor. The difference here is that some simpletons can not seem to figure out that the private insurer bureaucrats sole job is to seek ways to DENY you coverage. There are a lot of people that paid for years to their provider thinking all was well and good, that is until they finally become sick and found they had one of those "pre-existing conditions" - read here for one.

So, we have a healthcare system that is costly, ineffective, and inefficient. We have 50 million uninsured, 25 million under-insured, with the rest in a private system that exists with the goals of denying you coverage (for that is HOW the entire insurance system exists). It is like thinking Vegas exists to make us rich, if the odds were really against the casinos they would not be in existence.

We are all already paying higher in the current system. We still pay for the uninsured each time one has to visit the emergency room which is significantly higher than preventive general practitioners. There is absolutely zero political support to end Medicare and Medicaid which account now for over $400b/yr. Medicare has existed since 1965, and nobody who ever expects to win an election or re-election will vote Medicare out of existence. The entire birth of Medicare was because the private insurers would NOT cover those above 65. Once again, private insurance does not exist to provide coverage, they exist to provide a return on investment to the shareholders/ownership.

 

[political_debater]

Fascinating isnt it, that improved health outcomes in the over 65 group that coincides when they are covered by Medicare, that low-cost socialist program.

I don't quite understand your question. Where do you get the statistics to justify that about medicaid?

 

[Sergeant Stinger1]

Good or bad, like it or not the time has come for it.
Yes, it won't be perfect but as time goes by it will improve.
Our politicians need our votes and thats why it will at some point become right.

 

[sam_w]

Good or bad, like it or not the time has come for it.
Yes, it won't be perfect but as time goes by it will improve.
Our politicians need our votes and thats why it will at some point become right.

In order for the U.S. to compete in the global market, drastic change has to happen. An unhealthy workforce is an UNPRODUCTIVE workforce. An unhealthy population is one EVERYONE here is paying more for to begin with. If those so opposed ideologically to public healthcare wish to do, then can always remain within the private system.