U.S. passes "historic" healthcare bill

[mistermack]

Those numbers can't be taken in a vacuum.

They're not. It's a like for like comparison of health spending for the countries of the world.

The typical American family spends .........

So what? There's more to a country than just the typical family. And if you used the same measure, the typical British family spends practically nothing.

Until very recently, the US was the wealthiest country in the world by almost every measure.

In that case, it's a fucking disgrace that you have fifty million people without health cover.

And, those numbers do not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that there should be a national health care service. We can, alternatively, make regulatory adjustments to address inefficiencies in the system and address unnecessarily rising costs and expenses.

Well, good luck with that. I thought that the point of private enterprise was that there should be little fat in the system to trim.

To compare well with the uk NHS, you have to cut what you spend in half, and cover fifty million more people.
I would have thought that even you would admit it needs more than just a review of costs. Surely that happens all the time anyway?
It needs total revolution, it's top-heavy with the intrinsic costs of a private system.

[Coito ergo sum]

Those numbers can't be taken in a vacuum.

They're not. It's a like for like comparison of health spending for the countries of the world.

Yes, but that number doesn't imply that health coverage is worse, or that Americans aren't getting good value for the money being spent. Just because other countries are paying less doesn't make that good, and just because the US is paying more doesn't mean that national health care is better.

The typical American family spends .........

So what? There's more to a country than just the typical family. And if you used the same measure, the typical British family spends practically nothing.

The stats are certainly as relevant as your overall per capital spending statistic.

Until very recently, the US was the wealthiest country in the world by almost every measure.

In that case, it's a fucking disgrace that you have fifty million people without health cover.

We don't have 50 million people without health coverage.

And, those numbers do not necessarily lead one to the conclusion that there should be a national health care service. We can, alternatively, make regulatory adjustments to address inefficiencies in the system and address unnecessarily rising costs and expenses.

Well, good luck with that. I thought that the point of private enterprise was that there should be little fat in the system to trim.[/quote]

The point of private enterprise is that people are free to do what they like with their own property, and that greater efficiency is encouraged because of competition. Fat is trimmed because leaner, more efficient companies defeat fatter, less efficient companies. It does not promise complete elimination of all fat, nor do we have perfect competition from an economic standpoint.

To compare well with the uk NHS, you have to cut what you spend in half, and cover fifty million more people.

One, it's not 50 million uninsured. Two, it wouldn't be cutting spending in half. Three, we would also have to increase wait times and limit access to many procedures Americans can get immediately that can't be received immediately in the NHS. A common example is the MRI. An American with an issue can invariably get an MRI the same day, usually within minutes or hours, of showing up at a hospital (with or without insurance coverage). That and other such procedures being immediately available cost money.

I would have thought that even you would admit it needs more than just a review of costs. Surely that happens all the time anyway?
It needs total revolution, it's top-heavy with the intrinsic costs of a private system.

Perhaps. It doesn't mean we should go with an NHS.

We could look at who the uninsured are, and solve that issue, rather than change the entire system that now covers almost 300,000,000 people quite well with coverage for health care that people travel to the US from other countries to get.

It's important to know who is uninsured in the US. The very poor get free coverage under Medicaid. The elderly get free coverage through Medicare. Children who aren't insured through a parent's insurance are covered no matter what under Medicaid or SCHIP.

Half of the uninsured earn more than $50,000 annually, well above the national average of $40,000. More than 10 million of the "uninsured" are illegal immigrants. 14.7 million “are fully eligible for generous government assistance programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP [State Children’s Health Insurance Program]. The problem is, they just haven’t bothered to enroll in these programs.”

So -- those making over $50,000 can arguably afford to buy insurance (based on their salary). Moreover, they could do so for the same amount or less than they will be required to pay when Obamacare kicks in and forces them to buy insurance. Recall - that's what Obamacare does - it forces people to buy insurance. And, 14.7 million of the uninsured could already get coverage under currently available assistance programs, and 10 million shouldn't even be in the US in the first place.

When you total those numbers, it changes the analysis a bit.

[mistermack]

One, it's not 50 million uninsured.

I'm sorry, but in this case, I take the US Census Bureau's word in preference to yours. No offence intended.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that a record 50.7 million Americans—16.7% of the population—were uninsured in 2009.[1]

Here's your link (again) :
(Link)
You can bang on all you like about illegals, and people who haven't bought insurance. The fact is that EVERYONE in the UK is covered. They don't have to budget for it, or lose sleep over it, or go bankrupt over it. They don't have to give it a second thought. You lose your job, so what? You still don't have to think about health cover. You have a breakdown, let it all slip, whatever you do, you still have full health cover.
The US system is shit in so many ways, I wouldn't even wish it on Americans.

[Coito ergo sum]

One, it's not 50 million uninsured.

I'm sorry, but in this case, I take the US Census Bureau's word in preference to yours. No offence intended.

I'll stand corrected on the 50 million number from the census. I thought 2008 numbers were still the most recent census numbers out there.

You can bang on all you like about illegals, and people who haven't bought insurance. The fact is that EVERYONE in the UK is covered.

Good for you folks. You also have many problems in your system, and I have read numerous reports of those problems. Providing mandatory coverage is not the only interest involved.

They don't have to budget for it, or lose sleep over it, or go bankrupt over it. They don't have to give it a second thought. You lose your job, so what? You still don't have to think about health cover. You have a breakdown, let it all slip, whatever you do, you still have full health cover.
The US system is shit in so many ways, I wouldn't even wish it on Americans.

I fucking hate it when people can't discuss an issue without slipping in personal attacks like your little snarky dig - your snide remark. I'm fine with criticisms of the US system and I'm certainly willing to discuss the issue. But, I'll just return your fuckwit comment about "wishing it on Americans" by telling you to keep your system and shove your wait lists and "rationing boards." I wouldn't wish your system on our worst enemy.

Here it is denying services: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... close.html (Hundreds of thousands of NHS patients are being denied routine procedures as dozens of trusts cut back on surgery, scans and other treatments in order to save money) - Reported in the New York Times, too: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/26/b ... -services/ (* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures - * The closure of nursing homes for the elderly - A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, etc.) - Enjoy the blessings of your wonderful system.

In our system, Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers. Breast cancer mortality 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom than in the United States. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. than in the United States The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher than in the US. National health care doesn't make your mortality rates seem any better, unless the lyrics "and we'll all go down together!" from Good Night Saigon are your style...enjoy dying early, while "not worrying about anything."

Similarly, some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, are taking them. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 23 percent of Britons are taking them.

British patients wait about twice as long to see a specialist than Americans do, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer. Yes - that's correct - you folks wait twice as long for cancer radiation treatments. Good luck with that. In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment. "Hospital Waiting Times and List Statistics," Department of Health, England. Available at http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsand ... dition=Web. Have fun, waiting! By all means - criticize the American system - and just don't worry about the shit system you have.

The United States has 34 CT scanners per million Americans, compared to 8 per million in Britain. The United States has nearly 27 MRI machines per million compared to about 6 per million in Britain. OECD Health Data 2008, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available at http://www.oecd.org/document/30/0,3343, ... 07,00.html.

Oh - but, by all means, do pretend to some sort of "superior" system, and make snarky remarks about who you'd wish our system on. Why not concentrate on the bullshit and shortcomings in your own system, rather than worry about what happens in the US, much less make snide, bullshit comments about what system should be wished on Americans. Take your system and love it, if you think it's nothing you have to worry about. Next time you need an MRI or want to see a specialist, you can update me on how long you have to wait.

Here's another story about the drawbacks of your fabulous system: http://www.monetos.co.uk/insurance/heal ... drawbacks/

Here's a New York Times article about the shoddy state of your bullshit dental system (no wonder British teeth are so renowned for being awful and disgusting): http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/world ... nd&emc=rss - Sounds fucking lovely - no wonder you blighters have rotten fucking teeth - I wouldn't wish the British dental care system on the British.



More on cancer:

cancer researchers announced that as many as 15,000 people over age 75 were dying prematurely from cancer every year. Experts said those deaths could have been avoided if those patients had been diagnosed and treated earlier.
"There is nothing inherently different about cancer in the U.S. and Britain to explain why more people are dying here," said Dr. Karol Sikora, of Cancer Partners UK.

http://www.policynetwork.net/health/med ... -drawbacks (Europe's state run health care has drawbacks)

"Government control of health care is not a panacea," said Philip Stevens, of International Policy Network, a London think-tank. "The U.S. health system is a bit of a mess, but based on what's happened in some countries in Europe, I'd be nervous about recommending more government involvement."

[mistermack]

I can't be bothered to go through your quoted statistics and correct them one by one. I gave you the source for the 50 million before, you didn't bother to read it.
If you get your "facts" from the Telegraph, it's not surprising you haven't got a clue about the NHS. They would love to see it scrapped, and have all-private health like you. You might as well ask Fox News for facts.
If they gave your health system the same treatment, you would get a similar list of mistruths and bent stats.
I can't be assed to research all your claims and statistics. I will treat them as complete bollocks, until proven otherwise, as your record for accuracy isn't good, and you seem to be trawling rabid journals for quotes.
There are parts of the NHS treatment that perform better than the US. I could be sad and quote mine for them, like you did.
But I'll leave it to Wikepedia to sum it up :

The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[14][15] The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries,[16] and notes U.S. care costs the most.[17]

So I'm happy to be paying half what the US is, and getting a better health service, and cover for everyone.
As before, I'll take the word of the WHO and the Commonwealth fund, rather than yours, as they are experts, and not biased.

[Coito ergo sum]

I can't be bothered to go through your quoted statistics and correct them one by one.

I have sources for the stats. You can try to correct them if you want.

I gave you the source for the 50 million before, you didn't bother to read it.

I explained to you that I was going by 2008 statistics. The 50 million number is only the surface of the analysis. It's just as true, based on census data - that half that number makes over $50,000 a year, and can afford insurance, and more than 10,000,000 of them are illegal aliens, and another 17-18 million are already eligible for programs like SCHIP and Medicaid but simply haven't enrolled.

If you get your "facts" from the Telegraph, it's not surprising you haven't got a clue about the NHS. They would love to see it scrapped, and have all-private health like you. You might as well ask Fox News for facts.

Nice of you to ignore the other sources which I cited to back up the same things, like the New York Times. You don't like the Telegraph, so you ignore all my other citation. How intellectually honest of you...

If they gave your health system the same treatment, you would get a similar list of mistruths and bent stats.

Feel free to demonstrate it. I cited some british sources for the numbers about the british health care and dental industry. You just want to pretend they're not true. You want to pretend you don't wait twice as long as the average American. You want to pretend that they're not cutting services like I noted - go ahead and pretend.

I can't be assed to research all your claims and statistics. I will treat them as complete bollocks, until proven otherwise,

Other than providing you with multiple, diverse sources, which I have done - what would you have me do?

as your record for accuracy isn't good, and you seem to be trawling rabid journals for quotes.

I cited sources and linked to them. They are better than your sources.

There are parts of the NHS treatment that perform better than the US.

No sources? Of course not. I give you sources and actual numbers, and you simply hand-wave them away. You make some conclusory allegation of "parts of NHS treatment that perform better and you don't provide any proof, and you expect that to be believed? Nice double standard - I provide proof - which discount as "bollocks" because you "can't be arsed" to read it - and then you ask me to prove it again, but you don't even give yourself the obligation to prove a damn thing.

I could be sad and quote mine for them, like you did.

I didn't quote mine a single thing. I quoted the stats andprovided the backup.

But I'll leave it to Wikepedia to sum it up :

The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[14][15] The Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among similar countries,[16] and notes U.S. care costs the most.[17]

So I'm happy to be paying half what the US is, and getting a better health service, and cover for everyone.
As before, I'll take the word of the WHO and the Commonwealth fund, rather than yours, as they are experts, and not biased.

I already addressed the bullshit WHO stats in a previous post - for example the 37th in overall performance - that's the bullshit number that was "graded on a curve" placing "Oman" and "Dominica" and some other poverty stricken countries ahead of the US. It also used 5 criteria, 3 of which were "political" criteria.

But, that's right - your in depth proof consists of wikipedia, and anything beyond that you can't be "arsed with."

[mistermack]

Of course the World Health Organisation is part of a big conspiracy to make the US health provision look bad. And the Commonwealth Fund is party to the same wicked plan. Or are you not getting a bit paranoid?

It's a waste of time providing you with anything else. Not with that kind of paranoia kicking in. You seem fully prepared to argue that black is white.

Yes, after the Telegraph one, I ignored the rest. Like I said, I treat it as bollocks. Journalists are not a good source of unbiased facts, whether they work for the Telegraph, or the New York Times.
If you would like me to match bollocks with bollocks, there is this from the Washington Post :
(Link)


I prefer the World Health Organisation and the Commonwealth Fund, thanks very much.
.

[GreyICE]

@Coito: The Medicare costs are lower than private, and they'd be lower still if they didn't exist. What do I mean? Reduce the administration to this:

1) Person calls with a problem. For minor (flu, minor injury, etc.) time and doctor set.
2) Person calls with a major problem. Initial diagnosis time set.
3) Initial diagnosis made. Prescription (if needed/appropriate) set, necessary followups selected.
4) Necessary followups (including surgery, etc.) carried out. Further as appropriate.

For each of these, the patient pays at most a nominal fee. The doctor is paid an annual salary for up to a fixed number of operations, more results in a bonus, as does better outcomes and experience.

That's what most countries have. There's nominal overhead, because there's... much less overhead. The US has the most complex system on the planet, and the overhead from it is insane. There's entire companies that do nothing but take the money from the insurance companies and give it to the healthcare providers. That's right, there are corporations, large ones, that exist solely to get the money from the people paying to the people getting paid. Free market in action!

[Coito ergo sum]

Of course the World Health Organisation is part of a big conspiracy to make the US health provision look bad. And the Commonwealth Fund is party to the same wicked plan. Or are you not getting a bit paranoid?

I didn't claim a conspiracy. I told you what they based the statistic on. It is what it is, and it wasn't based on quality of health care, and it was partly based on "grading on a curve," and partly based on political considerations that inherently favored government provided health care.

It's a waste of time providing you with anything else. Not with that kind of paranoia kicking in. You seem fully prepared to argue that black is white.

Ridiculous. You're the one who won't even look at the evidence. You are snowed into thinking that your NHS system is a panacea when it isn't, and you won't even acknowledge the evidence of shoddy care, rationing, wait listing, less access to advanced medical tests, and the like. The best you could do is criticize one of my sources - and ignore the rest.

And, now you invent claims of paranoia by creating a straw man about a conspiracy I never alleged. There need not be a conspiracy for statistical methodologies to be flawed.

Yes, after the Telegraph one, I ignored the rest. Like I said, I treat it as bollocks. Journalists are not a good source of unbiased facts, whether they work for the Telegraph, or the New York Times.

But you think "wikipedia" is good source, and you ignored my other sources which included British government sources providing information about their own system.

[mistermack]

Coito, every time I look at one of your so-called facts, it turns out to be bollocks.
As the prostate survival figure was the most dramatic, (factor of 600%) I looked at it.
What did I find? It's bollocks.
It's actually a notorious figure that's regularly quoted in "bad science" articles.
The difference between the two countries is the reporting of the non virulent form that is not routinely bothered with over here. It doesn't need treatment and you will die of other things long before this will kill you.
In the US, it's included in the figures, so of course you have a huge number of people put down as surviving five years later (or whatever). We have the same, but we don't include them as surviving cancer, as they were never dying in the first place.

Like I said, I haven't got time to check out the rest of your bollocks. Perhaps you naiively believe it all. Perhaps not. I don't care.
By the way, it's no good banging on about teeth. Firstly, I've visited and lived in the States, and it's pure myth. (apart from the silly national habit of bleaching them whiter, there's no difference). And secondly, the NHS dental service is just a feint shadow of what it was, it was nearly destroyed by the Conservatives in their previous administration, so our dental system is much the same as yours.

[Coito ergo sum]

Mistermack - I cited my sources. You didn't. Cite yours and it'll be worth discussing which is bollocks and which are not.


Until then:

A judge in Florida on Monday became the second judge to declare President Barack Obama's healthcare reform law unconstitutional, in the biggest legal challenge yet to federal authority to enact the law.
U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, appointed to the bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, ruled that the reform law's so-called "individual mandate" went too far in requiring that Americans start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/01/ ... healthNews

[Seth]

So what? There's more to a country than just the typical family. And if you used the same measure, the typical British family spends practically nothing.

And herein lies the fundamental cognitive disconnect from economic reality of all collectivists: "I don't have to put money on the barrel-head when the service is rendered, so it must be free."

Problem is, it ain't true. Somebody's paying for it.

Now, it's true that the dependent-class proletarians get to enjoy "free" health care, but it's at the expense of enslaving the productive class to their service, which is immoral beyond all imagining.

Until very recently, the US was the wealthiest country in the world by almost every measure.

In that case, it's a fucking disgrace that you have fifty million people without health cover.

Anybody who needs actual health care can walk into any hospital or clinic in the country and receive health care...the finest, most advanced health care on the planet, available on a moment's notice and without inordinate, bureaucratic delay.

The difference is that they have to pay for their own health care, they can't enslave other people into paying for it for them.

I've not met a socialist yet who can provide a well-reasoned, rational, morally supportable argument justifying enslaving the productive class to the needs and desires of the dependent class.

[.Morticia.]

it's not health care

it's health insurance

[Seth]

it's not health care

it's health insurance

Yup, the biggest scam in recorded history...

[Coito ergo sum]

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/17/nearl ... z1MbytecPB