Nutjobs and health care

[Codrus]

Wow, whatever did America do before Health Insurance..........oh yeah, people saw doctors and got treated

 

[Accountable]

Ahh fair enough. I should have worded it better, I would have meant to say something like '16,000 Americans die each year resulting from a lack of health insurance.'

Sorry for any confusion there.

I'd added to my post, but you'd already started to reply. I'll put it here to cause even more convustion.


Your 18,000 link throws the number into the first sentence but doesn't say where the number comes from. the associated pdf file doesn't mention it at all. This is important to me because stats are a favorite tool to mislead, confuse, and scare people. Things like this I like to chase to the source to see who did the counting and who paid for it.

 

[Accountable]

Ahh fair enough. I should have worded it better, I would have meant to say something like '16,000 Americans die each year resulting from a lack of health insurance.'

Sorry for any confusion there.

See, nobody dies from lack of health insurance. Lack of food, sure. Lack of medical care, of course.

To say 16,000 Americans die each year resulting from a lack of health insurance is to say doctors let people die because they didn't have money. It's saying doctors watched a person die.

That's why it's important to me to find the source of that stat.

 

[Meirionnydd]

I'd added to my post, but you'd already started to reply. I'll put it here to cause even more convustion.


Your 18,000 link throws the number into the first sentence but doesn't say where the number comes from. the associated pdf file doesn't mention it at all. This is important to me because stats are a favorite tool to mislead, confuse, and scare people. Things like this I like to chase to the source to see who did the counting and who paid for it.

I can't actually read the PDF file, i'm required to purchase it to be able to read it. It's a research journal, (which are normally peer-reviewed), so it is a reliable source in my view. However, since we can't actually read it, I should probably use something else.

Anyway, i've found something else potentially more useful. The article mentions the same study mentioned above.

PolitiFact | Pascrell says up to 22,000 Americans die yearly because they don’t have health insurance

It's best to read the whole article, as it looks into the assertion of a Democratic congressmen that, 'Up to 22,000 Americans die because of lack of insurance' and deems if it's true or not.

The number in this claim comes from “Uninsured and Dying Because of It: Updating the Institute of Medicine Analysis on the Impact of Uninsurance on Mortality,” a paper published in January 2008 by the Urban Institute, a think tank. Stan Dorn, a senior research associate, wrote the paper to bring up to date a 2002 study by the federally chartered Institute of Medicine that estimated that 18,000 Americans died in 2000 because they were uninsured.

Dorn replicated the methodology of the Institute of Medicine, which developed long-term studies that measured the links between insurance status and death rates. The intitute’s researchers then used annual statistics on insurance rates and deaths to determine an estimate of extra deaths attributable to the lack of insurance. Dorn used newer data to redo the calculations and concluded that 22,000 people died due to lack of insurance in 2006. We tried to contact Dorn to see if the numbers could be brought even further up to date, but we were unable to reach him.

 

[Accountable]

I can't actually read the PDF file, i'm required to purchase it to be able to read it..

These people are definitely not businesspeople. They let you read the whole thing before purchansing!

Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations

Scroll down just a little and find "Select a link below to start reading online free!" It's the whole book, from what I can tell. It's gonna take me some time to read it.

 

[Alien Allen]

I would hardly consider Urban Institute to be an unbiased source. They were started by LBJ to look after the Great Society initiatives. You can guess from there what their philosophy is. And as stated data can be skewed to make it do whatever you like.

 

[Accountable]

That's my thinking. It's just damned odd that they would conclude that everybody need insurance, that people are dying from lack of insurance. That is not a natural logical conclusion; it's a predetermined outcome.

 

[Meirionnydd]

Okay, i've found the quote in the paper. It's mentioned briefly on page 46. There's also a reference next to it, so I guess you can check that if you want further information.

 

[Tim]

That's my thinking. It's just damned odd that they would conclude that everybody need insurance, that people are dying from lack of insurance. That is not a natural logical conclusion; it's a predetermined outcome.

Why is it so hard to draw the line between lack of coverage and premature death?

The uninsured are less likely to have a usual source of care outside a hospital emergency room.
They often go without screenings and preventive care and are three times more likely to delay or forgo care even when they are sick.
As a result, they're more likely to be diagnosed with a disease in an advanced stage, the report said. Providers also charge them more than double the insurance-negotiated rates, it said.

Isn't it logical that if you don't have private health insurance that you aren't going to get regular check-ups or go to the doctor when you are feeling ill as often as you would if you were covered?

That's my thinking. It's just damned odd that they would conclude that everybody need insurance...

If this was the 60's or 70's I would agree with this. But everyone should have coverage today, especially when the cost of treatment can easily exceed the price of your house.
Here's my take... the health insurance market is on an unsustainable course and something has to give. We have a health care system that will not deny treatment to those in need (for the most part) Those services cost time and money. But the hospitals and doctors are not being fully reimbursed for there services, either by people not being able to pay and declaring bankruptcy, insurance companies only paying a percentage of the bill or denying service altogether. So the costs are raised in an effort to cover the losses which in turn causes more people to default on their bills and the viscous cycle continues to grow.

When I hear that people don't want to cover the uninsured through some sort of UHC plan, or that they don't think everyone needs health insurance, then I know that they don't fully understand what is going on since they are paying for it anyway and very inefficiently to boot.

By taking the profits out of the picture and making sure that everyone is in the system and paying their share, that alone will reduce the costs for everyone. But as long as there are huge bills that will never be paid by the patient, I will see increases in costs to cover that... so I would rather everyone pay with UHC

 

[Accountable]

Okay, i've found the quote in the paper. It's mentioned briefly on page 46. There's also a reference next to it, so I guess you can check that if you want further information.

Perfect! Thanks.

 

[Accountable]

Why is it so hard to draw the line between lack of coverage and premature death?

There's a difference between insurance and the care it pays for.

If this was the 60's or 70's I would agree with this. But everyone should have coverage today, especially when the cost of treatment can easily exceed the price of your house.
Here's my take... the health insurance market is on an unsustainable course and something has to give. We have a health care system that will not deny treatment to those in need (for the most part) Those services cost time and money. But the hospitals and doctors are not being fully reimbursed for there services, either by people not being able to pay and declaring bankruptcy, insurance companies only paying a percentage of the bill or denying service altogether. So the costs are raised in an effort to cover the losses which in turn causes more people to default on their bills and the viscous cycle continues to grow.

When I hear that people don't want to cover the uninsured through some sort of UHC plan, or that they don't think everyone needs health insurance, then I know that they don't fully understand what is going on since they are paying for it anyway and very inefficiently to boot.

By taking the profits out of the picture and making sure that everyone is in the system and paying their share, that alone will reduce the costs for everyone. But as long as there are huge bills that will never be paid by the patient, I will see increases in costs to cover that... so I would rather everyone pay with UHC

But everyone in the system can't pay their share. You said so yourself. What's left, if you insist on going down this road anyway, is that a few will foot the bill for themselves and others as well. I don't call that "fair share" even though it's PC today.

Questions: why does it have to be national? Why does it have to be centrally controlled by Washington, when the Constitution doesn't support it? Can't there be more than one solution to a problem?

 

[Tim]

But everyone in the system can't pay their share. You said so yourself. What's left, if you insist on going down this road anyway, is that a few will foot the bill for themselves and others as well. I don't call that "fair share" even though it's PC today.

Wow, you really are cold hearted aren't you... "pay your share or get the fuck out!" right?
I know it's hard to imagine but not everyone only cares about themselves. We live in a society where certain obligations are best taken care of by the "commons" because it is impossible to be totally self sufficient. It would be impracticable for each individual to live completely independent of his or her neighbor. We are a society that must establish and maintain the commons (education, infrastructure, law enforcement, fire protection, interstate highways, health care, etc.) to succeed. And these commons need to be paid for by everyone, and if you can't pay your fair share, it's picked up by someone else.

Can you imagine using your argument to fight against the interstate highway program when it was first proposed? Not everyone was able to pay their "fair share" as you put it. Yet the system benefited everyone. So would you have opposed the interstate highway system since it wasn't powers granted to the federal government by the constitution and not everyone could pay their fare share???

Questions: why does it have to be national? Why does it have to be centrally controlled by Washington, when the Constitution doesn't support it? Can't there be more than one solution to a problem?

It doesn't have to be national. But can you see a better way to do this? Do you really think that the states would be able to do this? What total and complete chaos would ensue if all 50 states tried to each come up with some sort of plan... as of now, we have representatives from each of those states working together on a plan that will unify everyone.

Why is it that I don't picture you happy until each state is doing their own thing and we need "papers" just to get from one state to another?

 

[Minor Axis]

There's a difference between insurance and the care it pays for.

But everyone in the system can't pay their share. You said so yourself. What's left, if you insist on going down this road anyway, is that a few will foot the bill for themselves and others as well. I don't call that "fair share" even though it's PC today.

Questions: why does it have to be national? Why does it have to be centrally controlled by Washington, when the Constitution doesn't support it? Can't there be more than one solution to a problem?

Right now anyone can walk into any emergency room and pay nothing for treatment. You are all ready paying for that. The larger the insured pool, the lower the costs. There are people who move to states based on welfare programs. It's not inconceivable they would move to states based on their health care programs possibly overwhelming an individual State's ability to run their program. It's better organized on a national level imo.

There are tons of programs funded by tax payer dollars that are not spelled out in the Constitution but you go on and on about it. I don't think the Constitution is about going into those kind of program details is it? I think you are fussing over a standard that does not exist.

 

[Accountable]

Wow, you really are cold hearted aren't you... "pay your share or get the fuck out!" right?
I know it's hard to imagine but not everyone only cares about themselves. We live in a society where certain obligations are best taken care of by the "commons" because it is impossible to be totally self sufficient. It would be impracticable for each individual to live completely independent of his or her neighbor. We are a society that must establish and maintain the commons (education, infrastructure, law enforcement, fire protection, interstate highways, health care, etc.) to succeed. And these commons need to be paid for by everyone, and if you can't pay your fair share, it's picked up by someone else.

I'm simply pointing out that your own argument doesn't hold water. You type "pay your share" but you mean "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Can you imagine using your argument to fight against the interstate highway program when it was first proposed? Not everyone was able to pay their "fair share" as you put it. Yet the system benefited everyone. So would you have opposed the interstate highway system since it wasn't powers granted to the federal government by the constitution and not everyone could pay their fare share???

I think I probably would not have supported the program. Everybody benefitted from the autobahn, too. Benefitting everybody is not always enough. I'll be glad to discuss it in another thread if you wish.

It doesn't have to be national. But can you see a better way to do this? Do you really think that the states would be able to do this? What total and complete chaos would ensue if all 50 states tried to each come up with some sort of plan... as of now, we have representatives from each of those states working together on a plan that will unify everyone.

As I said before, 50 separate ideas of what should be done is far, far, superior to a single monopolistic federal program. It creates benchmarking (a mode of comparison) which spurs competition and innovation -- continuous improvement. A monopoly is static and changes/improves very little because there is no reason to.

Why is it that I don't picture you happy until each state is doing their own thing and we need "papers" just to get from one state to another?

Papers shouldn't be necessary.

 

[Accountable]

There are tons of programs funded by tax payer dollars that are not spelled out in the Constitution but you go on and on about it. I don't think the Constitution is about going into those kind of program details is it? I think you are fussing over a standard that does not exist.

You're right. Fuck the Constitution. It's only a quaint relic of history after all.

 

[Minor Axis]

You're right. Fuck the Constitution. It's only a quaint relic of history after all.

The Constitution lays out broad guidelines. It does not name every program funded by tax payer dollars and it does not require a constitutional amendment every time a new government department such as Homeland Security is created. If you feel like it, would you post again what part of the Constitution says there can be no federal program that administers Universal Health Care?

I'm simply pointing out that your own argument doesn't hold water. You type "pay your share" but you mean "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

So as you described it, that is terrible standard?

As I said before, 50 separate ideas of what should be done is far, far, superior to a single monopolistic federal program.

Larger pool, lower expenses. In this case 50 programs would not be more efficient. I am surprised you would promote this kind of broken logic. And what makes you think that state bureaucracies are any better than federal ones in making choices and picking programs? And in exactly what way would States be competing against one another if they each have their own programs? That's like saying Minnesota and Wisconsin compete with each other to lay down the best highways (which they don't). The only competition I see would be to attract companies by lowering their (the companies) health care obligations and consequently raising individual obligations/expense towards health care. That is not the type of competition I want.

 

[Accountable]

The Constitution lays out broad guidelines. It does not name every program funded by tax payer dollars and it does not require a constitutional amendment every time a new government department such as Homeland Security is created. If you feel like it, would you post again what part of the Constitution says there can be no federal program that administers Universal Health Care?

Glad to.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Minor Axis]

Glad to.

What powers are not delegated to the federal government?

I want to know why you have not been drum beating regarding VA Hospitals and Medicare? Clearly those are examples of a socialistic/universal health care plans that the government is incapable of running, right? And the people who use it, virtually every retired worker in this country hate it! Who Love Medicare?.


BTW, if you use those big letters again, I'll reach into my screen and slap you.

 

[Accountable]

What powers are not delegated to the federal government?

I want to know why you have not been drum beating regarding VA Hospitals and Medicare? Clearly those are examples of a socialistic/universal health care plans that the government is incapable of running, right? And the people who use it, virtually every retired worker in this country hate it! Who Love Medicare?.


BTW, if you use those big letters again, I'll reach into my screen and slap you.

the VA and medicare were established just a little before my time. I'm trying to prevent further abuse. IMO nobody is challenging the constitutionality of the social security ponzi scheme is because they're afraid of cutting active voters off of the government tit.

The VA is arguably an employer provided continuing program for former employees, though no sane profit-making company would do the same. As a social program only, it makes no fiscal sense to keep that program going with all the massive expansion of the social security system. I think it's a sacred cow. Just like the ones in India people watch them get sick and suffer, and mumble heartfelt words of genuine pity as it dies a slow painful death. Its primary purpose - hell, maybe its ony purpose - is PR value.

 

[Alien Allen]

anybody catch the big fat lie by Obama where he said AARP would not be endorsing the plan if medicare was being undermined?

only one problem. AARP has not endorsed the plan

RealClearPolitics - Video - Obama Falsely Claims AARP Supports Health Reform Plan

AARP Reacts to President’s Health Care Townhall


How do you spin that one??

.