Fucking healthcare

[Peter_Puget]

No spin just replying to Tvash's bullshit "nazi" comments directed toward Jayb......

 

ok so you are saying that 40% of americans have no to inadequate healthcare? Please w/o looking stuff up on the web explain what you mean by that.....

[Peter_Puget]

Maybe this explain US health rankings!

 

Low intelligence among top heart health risks

[Peter_Puget]

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.

 

Which is a powerful argument toward showing the for-profit system cannot be salvaged.

 

Total BS J_B

[StevenSeagal]

Their wealth should be the primary source of their support.

 

 

 

 

and for folks without so much wealth, and/or younger folks who haven't built a fortune and are unlucky enough to get a serious illness or injury? Tough luck?

 

Btw, sorry about your dad- that stuff is stressful for all.

[JayB]

So much spin to hide the fact that 1/4 to 2/5 of Americans have no to inadequate health insurance coverage, which means everybody else pays in increased premiums when these folks can't put it off any longer and have to go to the emergency room (the right wing tax bogeyman to increase effective costs isn't needed here despite FW's affirmation). Too bad for the 45,000 Americans who die every year for lack of access to health care but regressives don't give a shit and they'll obstruct any reform they can by any means available.

 

Can we say Massachusetts? more than 80% of Mass voters want Medicare extended to everybody, and Brown tried to stay as far away from the toxic GOP brand as he could (riding around in a pickup truck to pretend one is a populist won't fool the people for very long). Hardly the victory conservatives want us to think it is.

 

Didn't the study you cite for the 45K figure compare mortality amongst the two completely different demographic cohorts, and exclude everyone who made enough money to buy insurance from the "uninsured" pool? Thank goodness they didn't compare the folks with Medicaid coverage to the pool of folks that make enough money to buy insurance but don't carry it - since the statistical associations would "prove" that getting covered by Medicaid causes a dramatic increase in illness and mortality.

 

The key take away is that there's quite a bit more than an insurance card that differentiates the folks that are consistently too poor to purchase insurance from the folks who consistently carry coverage. Education, lifestyle, etc, etc, etc. If your study proves anything, it's that long-term structural poverty is the problem.

 

 

[Bug]

Someone who becomes morbidly obese by choice does not in my opinion have a "constitutional right" to use my tax dollars to pay for the resulting health issues. I would say the same for smokers, drug abusers, and people who suffer from carple tunnel syndrome from drilling too many bolts.

 

I am not sure where you got these people got there by choice when they were pushed to consume these things at every corner, and it cost a pretty penny to the pushers too..

 

I have the same choices to make and kids to raise. Nothing I buy has High Fructose corn syrup in it. Nor MSG (I am sure it is an appetite stimulant). And so forth. Eat less, exercise more. Any other choice IS a choice.

 

But I am still in favor of a public option because it provides a safety net of sorts. For the low end it will really suck to wait in the lines and suffer the oppressive BS.

Constitutional right? No.

The right thing to do? Yes.

 

who said the right thing to do wasn't the definition of a constitutional right?

I am talking about the right wing interpretation of the words on paper. That is after all, who controls the court these days so we have no choice but to play by their rules. Mind you, I can't wait to get a few of those assholes out of there.

[Jim]

If your study proves anything, it's that long-term structural poverty is the problem.

 

So we're back to the basics - income level determines if you have health care. Please don't tell me how affordable catostrophic insurance is. Even if you're middle class you can't afford a reasonable plan for your kids. I think there are a number of undeniable (to thinking people anyway) issues with health care in the US-

 

An army of for profit insurance companies with no standardization.

Somewhere around 25-40 million left out; sure some by choice but a heck of a lot of folks are not or under insured.

Costs - no dispute here, we pay more than anyone with no cost/benefit outcome to show for it.

Profit - it runs the show, from pushing drugs people don't need, to twarting any change, to having insurance companies give bonuses for denying care.

 

While picking on the edges of the argument for change - I'm hearing nothing from the naysayers on how these issues should be addressed.

[Peter_Puget]

Their wealth should be the primary source of their support.

 

 

 

 

and for folks without so much wealth, and/or younger folks who haven't built a fortune and are unlucky enough to get a serious illness or injury? Tough luck?

 

Btw, sorry about your dad- that stuff is stressful for all.

 

I have never said I was against aid to people who need it.

 

By the way here is something to consider. Cancer survival rates in the US are better than Europe this is mostly due to better screening and upfront care.. Now given that (per J_B) 40% of Americans have either non existent or inadequate coverage it does seem that that should not be the case. (I don’t have time to pull files/references but if you're interested there was a study published in the Lancet not too long ago that covered this as well as several fairly recent British studies. ) Now how many times have you heard the claim that government provided healthcare will provide smarter preventative care and thus produce better results at a lower cost than our current system. Just why haven’t our friends in Europe despite a long history of government provided healthcare been able to do this? The answer is it is harder than it seems and those who promote this easy answer are either naïve or being disingenuous.

[StevenSeagal]

Peter, I'm not sure that the argument is that government healthcare is going to be better by design, rather, that by increasing people's access to it, including but not limited to by means of gov't assistance, is going to result in improved health of the American populace. Granted, lifestyle choices are the best prevention, it's obvious to us outdoor types but it is not so obvious to the average person, and doctors/therapist can provide their patients sound counseling.

 

Also the issue isn't that people who choose to be uninsured can't actually afford the premiums; it is the thought that you could be paying these premiums which do take a bite out of one's budget and still get bankrupted in the event of serious illness or injury. So a lot of willfully uninsured are just so because they'd rather hedge (hope) that they won't get sick or injured and save those premiums in their pocket instead. If you're going to go broke either way...

[prole]

By the way here is something to consider. Cancer survival rates in the US are better than Europe this is mostly due to better screening and upfront care..

 

Or not consider...

 

 

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgqqSHr0wVA&feature=player_embedded

 

Edited February 10, 2010 by prole

[Jim]

By the way here is something to consider. Cancer survival rates in the US are better than Europe....

 

This is false. Survival rates of SOME cancer types are better in the US and some less than Europe. http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country

 

So there are some scattered indicators of light among the trash heap. So what. How do we provide access for those that can't get care, significantly reduce cost, and improve efficient delivery?

[glassgowkiss]

Why would we want to revive a dead, so-called healthcare bill that is going to deny individual rights and apply additional taxes to the 84% of Americans who are presently covered? Why have Democrats locked out Republicans until now? Can you say Massachusetts? Why did Obama and Pelosi lie to us about "keeping the coverage [we] have?" Why didn't Obama C-Span debates as earlier promised?

 

This bill is D-E-A-D. Appearing on TV with the teleprompter-in-chief would be pointless.

 

BTW: why haven't we heard anything more from his "jobs summit" back in November? Because it was just a ploy.

84%- where the fuck did you get this number? fox news? and how many out of your 84 have only so-called catastrophic coverage, which btw don't really cover anything. and since you are such a fucking duche-nozzle expert on healthcare when did you have to pay any medical bills. by the way you spew your bullshit not in the last decade.

 

Bob:

 

That figure comes from the US Census Bureau. Specifically, page 27 of this publication:

 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf

 

You'll find the text below on the top left of the said page:

 

"The percentage of people without

health insurance in 2008 was not

statistically different from 2007 at

15.4 percent."

 

This figure includes people who are only uninsured for part of the year, those who make enough to purchase coverage but decline to do so, non-citizens, etc, etc, etc, etc and as such dramatically *overstates* the number of people who cannot get coverage because they're too poor or too sick.

 

It's strange for someone who's concerned about the price of coverage complain about high-deductible plans, when they're one of the few good mechanisms available to limit wasteful spending, keep premiums affordable, limit the capacity of insurance companies to meddle in routine medical decisions, while simultaneously protecting against getting wiped out in a medical catastrophe.

 

If you're upset about anything, it should be the first dollar plans that encourage waste and state mandates that foist the cost of fertility treatments, massages, Retin-A scripts, etc, etc, etc, etc, on people who just want something to cover them when they get a serious injury or illness.

Now how is medical massage a wasteful treatment- maybe elaborate? Even internal GH study in 2006 showed massage as the single best method in chronic low back pain (86% effective), while other modalities like PT, chiropractic or drug treatment (which was the lowest with only 28%) were far below that. Again- over 80% of patients have reoccurring thoraco-lumbar back pain within 5 years of a surgery, which costs on average insurance companies 28bln dollars a year.

Same goes for conditions like CT, TOS and such.

The problems with catastrophic insurance policies are:

1. doesn't promote preventive medicine- usually patients only use it in emergency- hence the conditions go undetected.

2. don't cover medications. this is a big one- if you don't know majority of medications for serious type illness like auto-immune disorders or cancer might run you about 100K a month. with catastrophic coverage there is no clinic or hospital which will treat you without pre-payment. ER will not manage chronic conditions, so people are getting royally screwed.

[j_b]

ok so you are saying that 40% of americans have no to inadequate healthcare? Please w/o looking stuff up on the web explain what you mean by that.....

 

at least 1/5 of Americans with insurance do not follow through with needed care because of additional costs they can't afford. In case of major illness their coverage often becomes completely useless.

[glassgowkiss]

ok so you are saying that 40% of americans have no to inadequate healthcare? Please w/o looking stuff up on the web explain what you mean by that.....

 

at least 1/5 of Americans with insurance do not follow through with needed care because of additional costs they can't afford. In case of major illness their coverage often becomes completely useless.

I don't think the issue is so simple. I think a vast majority of people don't even know how to take care of themselves, they eat like shit and don't exercise at all- hence the epidemic of morbidly obese and fat people, which btw is the biggest strain on the system at the moment. The problem is the insurance companies are interested in people getting ill, so they can charge them whatever they want, hence creating lifetime customers, as you can't change the plan if you have pre-existing condition.

But i agree, people don't realize majority of plans are worthless when it comes to major illness.

[StevenSeagal]

they eat like shit and don't exercise at all- hence the epidemic of morbidly obese and fat people, which btw is the biggest strain on the system at the moment. .

 

wow, and all this time I'd been told it was those welfare babies sponging off the system, and illegal Mexicans that were the entirety of the problem...

[Bug]

Hopefully we can all agree that the woman sitting behind Al is hot.

[StevenSeagal]

Hopefully we can all agree that the woman sitting behind Al is hot.

 

Did her.

[ivan]

Hopefully we can all agree that the woman sitting behind Al is hot.

if trapped in an endless debate revolving aroudn single payer systems and the international socialist conspiracy to destroy christmas, any woman you can stare it, possessing of most of her teeth, will eventually become uber-hawt

 

i recall learning this in econ 101

[prole]

if trapped in an endless debate revolving aroudn single payer systems and the international socialist conspiracy to destroy christmas, any woman you can stare it, possessing of most of her teeth, will eventually become uber-hawt

 

i recall learning this in econ 101

 

Which would explain the buttfugliest of unholy alliances that coupled Alan Greenspan with Ayn Rand.

[tvashtarkatena]

One person without health care security is too many for a civilized country. Given our military adventures, we can easily afford it. That's not the issue. The issue is a winner v loser philosophy of cruelty versus a middle class, we're all in this together philosophy. It's a choice.

 

Our current health care debacle stands alone in the civilized world. No other country in our income bracket has this problem of costs spiraling out of control, a national in fear of inadequate coverage or renigging on the coverage they have, and medically related bankruptcies. Our system is basically lose your job, lose your coverage. Or...don't make enough? Welcome to Africa. It's disgusting.

 

Arguing cancer survival rates or whether there are 50 million or only 30 people without coverage (a disingenuous argument at its face, as re are tens of millions who may be covered but inadequately) is all just complete bullshit. By nearly every measure, we absolutely suck compared to a host of nations less wealthy than we are. Furthermore, continuation of our present system ensures that costs will continue to spiral out of control. The stress that spectre causes our people is incalculable. Is there a single person in this audience who isn't worried about it? The tragedy is, it doesn't need to be this way. We have 30 or so national models, pieces of which are all already in place in our country in one form or another, that are superior to our own by nearly every substantive measure.

Edited February 11, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[Bug]

But she's hot. Right?

[JayB]

Why would we want to revive a dead, so-called healthcare bill that is going to deny individual rights and apply additional taxes to the 84% of Americans who are presently covered? Why have Democrats locked out Republicans until now? Can you say Massachusetts? Why did Obama and Pelosi lie to us about "keeping the coverage [we] have?" Why didn't Obama C-Span debates as earlier promised?

 

This bill is D-E-A-D. Appearing on TV with the teleprompter-in-chief would be pointless.

 

BTW: why haven't we heard anything more from his "jobs summit" back in November? Because it was just a ploy.

84%- where the fuck did you get this number? fox news? and how many out of your 84 have only so-called catastrophic coverage, which btw don't really cover anything. and since you are such a fucking duche-nozzle expert on healthcare when did you have to pay any medical bills. by the way you spew your bullshit not in the last decade.

 

Bob:

 

That figure comes from the US Census Bureau. Specifically, page 27 of this publication:

 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf

 

You'll find the text below on the top left of the said page:

 

"The percentage of people without

health insurance in 2008 was not

statistically different from 2007 at

15.4 percent."

 

This figure includes people who are only uninsured for part of the year, those who make enough to purchase coverage but decline to do so, non-citizens, etc, etc, etc, etc and as such dramatically *overstates* the number of people who cannot get coverage because they're too poor or too sick.

 

It's strange for someone who's concerned about the price of coverage complain about high-deductible plans, when they're one of the few good mechanisms available to limit wasteful spending, keep premiums affordable, limit the capacity of insurance companies to meddle in routine medical decisions, while simultaneously protecting against getting wiped out in a medical catastrophe.

 

If you're upset about anything, it should be the first dollar plans that encourage waste and state mandates that foist the cost of fertility treatments, massages, Retin-A scripts, etc, etc, etc, etc, on people who just want something to cover them when they get a serious injury or illness.

Now how is medical massage a wasteful treatment- maybe elaborate? Even internal GH study in 2006 showed massage as the single best method in chronic low back pain (86% effective), while other modalities like PT, chiropractic or drug treatment (which was the lowest with only 28%) were far below that. Again- over 80% of patients have reoccurring thoraco-lumbar back pain within 5 years of a surgery, which costs on average insurance companies 28bln dollars a year.

Same goes for conditions like CT, TOS and such.

The problems with catastrophic insurance policies are:

1. doesn't promote preventive medicine- usually patients only use it in emergency- hence the conditions go undetected.

2. don't cover medications. this is a big one- if you don't know majority of medications for serious type illness like auto-immune disorders or cancer might run you about 100K a month. with catastrophic coverage there is no clinic or hospital which will treat you without pre-payment. ER will not manage chronic conditions, so people are getting royally screwed.

 

-I'm sure massage is effective - but I'd like to have the right to decide for myself if it's something I want coverage for. Ditto for infertility treatment and a host of other things that work for folks that need them but which I'd nevertheless prefer to pay for out of pocket in exchange for lower premiums.

 

-Preventive care is great. It saves lives, but the evidence that it saves money in the aggregate is mixed and marginal at best. Great idea - but not the money saver it's been billed as.

 

-Would you say someone who has a hard time paying for health insurance would be better off with a catastrophic plan that they can afford or no coverage at all? IMO we're better off giving folks the choice of forking over a few extra hundred a month for comprehensive, low-deductible policies if they want to pay for protection against the risk that they'll develop a condition that requires a lifetime of expensive medications to cope with. The only folks who win that bet with the insurance companies are the people for whom the cost of their drugs exceeds the aggregate monthly cost differential between catastrophic and comprehensive insurance. Not sure how many people have that happen on a percentage basis, but I'd personally rather have the right to take my chances and pocket the money myself, use the accrued savings to finance the drugs to the best of my ability when and if I need them instead of handing the insurance company hundreds of additional dollars every month.

 

 

[JayB]

Worth reading if you want to have a serious discussion about medical bankruptcies in the us....

 

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/25/2/w74

[glassgowkiss]

-Would you say someone who has a hard time paying for health insurance would be better off with a catastrophic plan that they can afford or no coverage at all?

I would say you are better off without any insurance, as will not be able to pay anyway. The same way we can't pay 20k or 120k for treatments. Say for someone like me it's about 140/months- so save yourself the cash, as you still can't even afford the deductibles and copay.

[RedNose]

You know what I really hate?

 

 

 

 

Totally incomplete rants on CC.Com...

 

 

 

Way to rock that shit.

 

Ya like yours! Glassgowkiss your acute observations are noted.