Fucking healthcare

[Fairweather]

I wager you 47 tons of jet fuel that Chicago is going to host the Olympic games.

i betcha $700 billion that we'll find WMD in iraq too

 

Tired old argument. Besides, in OB's brave new world we speak trillion. But since you demand answers; yes, I suspect the weapons were, in fact, hidden in Chicago.

[prole]

...in OB's brave new world we speak trillion.

 

Better check that "best before" date.

[billcoe]

Those old "Borrow and Spend Republicans" again.

[ivan]

I wager you 47 tons of jet fuel that Chicago is going to host the Olympic games.

okay, apples to apples then...

 

how much fuel was wasted on obama's bullshit flight compared to this bullshit flight?

 

[Crux]

Obama Admin to Blue Cross: WTF?

 

Also, same story, difference sources: ABC News blog and CBS News blog.

 

The United States is noted for being the only industrial nation (other than Singapore?) that allows for-profit corporations to provide health care. Maybe it can be done better some other way?

Edited February 9, 2010 by Crux

[Jim]

A couple good summaries:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082101778.html

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

 

 

[JayB]

Oh, there's always room for movement. We're at the highest health care cost in the world for the 37th best care and only mediocre longevity. We could always pay a little more for a little less and die a little sooner.

 

Yuck it up buddy, its likely your children won't have as long a lifespan as you do.

 

It's not so bad, Off.

 

The WHO themselves state quite clearly that the rankings have much more to do with fairness than clinical efficacy.

 

Better yet, when you account for mortality that no doctor or hospital could prevent, the US longevity stats rank us right up there at the top of the OECD. The picture would be even brighter if you did away with the ridiculous distortions in infant mortality stats that arise from the wild divergences in what various countries count as a "live birth." We count an awful lot of very small, very light babies as live births that would pass away unrecorded in other countries. Ditto for those that die shortly after being born.

 

Kids that don't eat, drink, or smoke themselves to death and stay away from occupations like "crack dealer" have every reason to look forward to a longer run than their parents. If we ever get anything remotely resembling price transparency and competition going they might even spend a smaller percentage of their total earnings on health care than their parents did.

[JayB]

I agree that is the #1 thing to reform. I think there's just too many lawmakers on both sides of the aisle influenced by insurance industry money.

 

Worth noting that the combined annual profits of all insurance companies would pay for approximately two days worth of medical expenses in the US. Then there's also the fact that there's already a ton of non-profit insurers competing in the marketplace, and it's not clear that this has had an affect on premiums, prices, etc.

 

The best equation for evaluating the cost-efficiency of care is:

 

magnitude of medical benefit for a given treatment/cost of delivering said treatment.

 

Break the denominator down, look at the price of the actual delivery and give me your best estimate as to what percent of it is composed of "insurance company profits."

 

 

[Peter_Puget]

The United States is noted for being the only industrial nation (other than Singapore?) that allows for-profit corporations to provide health care.

 

Crux I believe that this statement is incorrect.

[Peter_Puget]

 

Worth noting that the combined annual profits of all insurance companies would pay for approximately two days worth of medical expenses in the US.

 

It is also worth noting that the other "evil" entity BIG pharma also does not constitute a huge share of healthcare expense. I think that all pharma cost are something like 10% of healthcare expenditures. (I am included profits and the drugs themselves) even if we were able to get both pharm expense and insurance profits paid for by God the basic healthcare problem will remain essentially unchanged.

[Off_White]

I thought this chart, from National Geographic, was sort of interesting. We might even get a new slogan: "For 3 times the cost, we're almost as good as Portugal!" You know, you look at these comparative numbers, and it almost seems as if there is something in the middle sucking up all the money.

 

 

Oh yeah, look: highest cost, mediocre (as in below median) longevity. The 37th ranking in quality of care came from some other source I heard but can't recall the source, so feel free to discount that statement if it makes you feel better.

[tvashtarkatena]

Um...OW, that's a graph of the growing approval of the teabagger movement among independents v their disapproval of Obama with the labels changed. There's absolutely nothing wrong with our health care system. Nice try.

[Off_White]

Did Fairweather crack your password?

[tvashtarkatena]

FW is now an ACLU donor, and therefore untouchable.

 

That bastard.

[JosephH]

- Inefficient delivery

- Overhead of thousands of duplicate administrative systems

- Profit-taking by insurance and hospital corps

[JayB]

I thought this chart, from National Geographic, was sort of interesting. We might even get a new slogan: "For 3 times the cost, we're almost as good as Portugal!" You know, you look at these comparative numbers, and it almost seems as if there is something in the middle sucking up all the money.

 

 

Oh yeah, look: highest cost, mediocre (as in below median) longevity. The 37th ranking in quality of care came from some other source I heard but can't recall the source, so feel free to discount that statement if it makes you feel better.

 

When I get a moment I'll post the chart that shows the OECD figures adjusted for stuff that doctors and hospitals can't prevent - murders, suicides, drownings, motorcycle-building collisions, etc.

 

That might not address the major unstated premise of your argument and that chart, which is that longevity stats are an accurate proxy for the quality of healthcare. I think the literature shows pretty well that once a country is wealthy enough to get nutritition, sanitation, and vaccination online the way people live is every bit as important as the standard of say - cardiothoracic surgery - where they live.

 

There's another dimension to quality that also never seems to make it into these discussions, which is alleviation of pain, suffering, inconvenience, etc. You can live to a ripe old age with a harelip, vaginal fistula, gimpy knee, mortifying acne, urinary incontinence, etc. The folks in the NZ health district that I lived in that were using long courses of medication to treat their gall bladders while they were waiting years for surgery are/were probably going to live as long as they would otherwise, but I suspect that they'd concede that it had an adverse affect on their quality of life.

 

The other thing that surprises me coming from a liberal of the highest order is what seems to be an implicit concession that the state - while having no legitimate role in determining what happens to a first or second trimester fetus - should have the authority to say whether or not, when, and how an octogenarian well past his 240th trimester gets treated or not.

[tvashtarkatena]

I thought this chart, from National Geographic, was sort of interesting. We might even get a new slogan: "For 3 times the cost, we're almost as good as Portugal!" You know, you look at these comparative numbers, and it almost seems as if there is something in the middle sucking up all the money.

 

 

Oh yeah, look: highest cost, mediocre (as in below median) longevity. The 37th ranking in quality of care came from some other source I heard but can't recall the source, so feel free to discount that statement if it makes you feel better.

 

When I get a moment I'll post the chart that shows the OECD figures adjusted for stuff that doctors and hospitals can't prevent - murders, suicides, drownings, motorcycle-building collisions, etc.

 

That might not address the major unstated premise of your argument and that chart, which is that longevity stats are an accurate proxy for the quality of healthcare. I think the literature shows pretty well that once a country is wealthy enough to get nutritition, sanitation, and vaccination online the way people live is every bit as important as the standard of say - cardiothoracic surgery - where they live.

 

There's another dimension to quality that also never seems to make it into these discussions, which is alleviation of pain, suffering, inconvenience, etc. You can live to a ripe old age with a harelip, vaginal fistula, gimpy knee, mortifying acne, urinary incontinence, etc. The folks in the NZ health district that I lived in that were using long courses of medication to treat their gall bladders while they were waiting years for surgery are/were probably going to live as long as they would otherwise, but I suspect that they'd concede that it had an adverse affect on their quality of life.

 

The other thing that surprises me coming from a liberal of the highest order is what seems to be an implicit concession that the state - while having no legitimate role in determining what happens to a first or second trimester fetus - should have the authority to say whether or not, when, and how an octogenarian well past his 240th trimester gets treated or not.

 

How, exactly, are the over 50 or so MILLION people with no health care whatsoever living more 'pain free' lives than their fully covered counterparts in other countries? None of the evidence I've read points to American system producing less suffering...the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary, due to the problem above and medically related bankruptcies...both of which should never happen in any civilized nation.

[JosephH]

The other thing that surprises me coming from a liberal of the highest order is what seems to be an implicit concession that the state - while having no legitimate role in determining what happens to a first or second trimester fetus - should have the authority to say whether or not, when, and how an octogenarian well past his 240th trimester gets treated or not.

Is there anywhere that this doesn't happen - outside of a ghetto anywhere in the world including the U.S.? Do you think our elder care system (languishing in nursing homes) is particularly humane for the individual involved or their families or one in which someone isn't making such decisions now?

[tvashtarkatena]

The other thing that surprises me coming from a liberal of the highest order is what seems to be an implicit concession that the state - while having no legitimate role in determining what happens to a first or second trimester fetus - should have the authority to say whether or not, when, and how an octogenarian well past his 240th trimester gets treated or not.

Is there anywhere that this doesn't happen - outside of a ghetto anywhere in the world including the U.S.? Do you think our elder care system (languishing in nursing homes) is particularly humane for the individual involved or their families or one in which someone isn't making such decisions now?

 

This is probably the most disingenuous, specious argument put out there by the Right; the assumption that old people in the US enjoy unlimited access to health care while their counterparts in other civilized countries are selected for life or death by the state. First, all systems ration, one way or the other. Ours does by a) refusing coverage b) not covering certain conditions c) capping coverage and d) not providing affordable health care at all. It does not, like most other countries, provide EQUAL ACCESS to health care for all. Here, if you can afford it, you live. If not, bye now. It is absolutely the cruelest system in the civilized world.

 

JayB's obviously insulated from the reality of our system. He's married to a doc living in NZ. I'm surrounded by people who can't afford coverage or who are inadequately covered. My own father, a 30 year military veteran who fought in 3 wars for this country, was one of the latter. There was no system available to him to cover his required home health care, which had to be paid out of pocket. He was considerate enough to die before the family savings were exhausted.

 

Fuck you, JayB. You're completely out to lunch here, and I think a large part of you knows it. Frankly, you remind me of the good little Nazi family man who pets the dog, kisses the wife and kids, and dutifully goes off to work gassing Jews. How an asshole like you can sit back and support what's going on when you, of all people, should know better, is completely beyond my moral understanding.

[tvashtarkatena]

Oops. Nazi reference. I'm slipping.

 

Particularly emotional issue for me, obviously. There's nothing like real world experience to clarify one's position on an issue like this.

Edited February 9, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Off_White]

...a liberal of the highest order ...

 

I do believe that's one of the nicest things you've ever said to me, you old charmer!

[JayB]

...a liberal of the highest order ...

 

I do believe that's one of the nicest things you've ever said to me, you old charmer!

 

I'm still waiting for the pendulum to swing back towards the original philosophy from whence the modern variant derives its name, but I see waaay more of it in your thinking (this is meant to be a compliment) than most of the folks who apply that label to themselves.

[Peter_Puget]

WOW you're very confused...for example equating coverage with care received but any way

 

Ours does by a) refusing coverage b) not covering certain conditions c) capping coverage ..

 

jeesh many socialized systems can be decribed exactly the same.

 

My own father, a 30 year military veteran who fought in 3 wars for this country, was one of the latter. There was no system available to him to cover his required home health care, which had to be paid out of pocket. He was considerate enough to die before the family savings were exhausted.

 

Isn't that what family savings should be for? I've run the numbers for my parents and they aren't great. But why should anyone else pay for my parent's care while they still have wealth. Obviously surviving spouses complicate matters but that can easily be a welfare issue and not a healthcare issue. By the way my father fought in only two wars and wasn't particularly happy to be in the military in the first place.

[tvashtarkatena]

WOW you're very confused...for example equating coverage with care received but any way

 

Ours does by a) refusing coverage b) not covering certain conditions c) capping coverage ..

 

jeesh many socialized systems can be decribed exactly the same.

 

My own father, a 30 year military veteran who fought in 3 wars for this country, was one of the latter. There was no system available to him to cover his required home health care, which had to be paid out of pocket. He was considerate enough to die before the family savings were exhausted.

 

Isn't that what family savings should be for? I've run the numbers for my parents and they aren't great. But why should anyone else pay for my parent's care while they still have wealth. Obviously surviving spouses complicate matters but that can easily be a welfare issue and not a healthcare issue. By the way my father fought in only two wars and wasn't particularly happy to be in the military in the first place.

 

You're such a clueless fuck this doesn't even warrant any more response than this.

[Choada_Boy]

Yes. The elderly should eat progressively cheaper dog food (or cat food, in the case of Grandma), as they spend the remainder of their "wealth" paying for what should be a constitutional right: health