JustinW

iNow,

 

This is patently false. It's about me using sources that are known to be objective and factual instead of ideological and inaccurate. And, I do NOT take the information for granted. I look closely at this, and you are quite simply wrong.

This is why you can't even admit that the arguments I present are valid? OK.

 

That has nothing whatsoever to do with me only looking to sources "that would have you believe that America is the real evil in the world."

I wasn't referring to the sites in which you obtain your information. I was referring to those that champion the trash talking of this country, like the sarcastic cheerleading that you have entertained and now Zapatos has chosen to duplicate. But free speach is free speach I guess, and you're entitled to your own.

 

 

 

John,

 

Bollocks- there are plenty of people who can't get work. Once again, you are refusing to let the facts disturb your beliefs.

And there are plenty of people who refuse to get work. As are you sir, refusing to let facts disturb your beliefs. Attack the facts, not my beliefs. Can you produce anything that says an unemployed person earns too much to be admitted to Medicaid?

 

 

I was pointing out that they were pretty good criteria- certainly birth and death are universal and well documented

 

Oh the fact that the US even reports still births in the ratings no matter what the weight. And here from the last link

As Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, points out, Norway, which has one of the lowest infant mortality rates, shows no better infant survival than the United States when you factor in weight at birth.

Does this seem like they are fairly consistant across the world. Even the OECD warns against comparing countries by these ratings, so why do you insist that we must and that that is as accurate as can be?

 

 

I told you what I was on about. In the meantime your question ""Do you have a reply for my last rebuttal on the majority of which country are black?" still makes no sense.

That was directed at iNow. He insisted that the majority of the population in Cuba and French Polynesia were black. I proved otherwise and was hoping he would admitt when he was wrong.

 

 

It doesn't matter what colour lines you draw, or where on the graph you put them. The data still show that most US states pay more for their healthcare (as proportion of GDP) than the rest of the world.

I'm not arguing that fact. I was stating the reason that we do, and that our current rate of pay is closer to normal in a free market compared with our economic output. That is what the line was showing.

 

 

No, I grant you that they could be comparing it to the death rates on Mars, but that seems unlikely. Where do you think they are comparing it to?

If they were comparing it to something don't you think they would have said what. By your willingness to assume, why couldn't they be comparing the rates of Colorado with the rest of the states since they were talking about Colorado? Why do you think that it wasn't that they were just saying that the rates are worse than they would like to see and that it was a retorhical "bad"? I'm just saying you're assuming something that isn't likely.

 

 

For a start, that's not the right logical fallacy for what you think I have done.

For an encore, since it's your data (at least you cited it) I really don't have to prove it in this case. (Unless, of course, you want to retract the evidence on which you are basing your claim- which would be an odd way to explain something).

My evidence? I've never produced any evidence that says "the US's white infant death rate is higher than NHS nation's white infant death rate." That was an assumption on your part and I asked you to provide the numbers for it. And if you want to assert that I have provided information stating that fact, I would also ask you to tell me where?

 

And, BTW, iNow, are you sure he's not trolling?

No I'm not trolling, though I doubt you would believe me anyway. You cannot attack the validity of my argument so you wish to misdirect the conversation. Or at least that is what I'm getting from your repetitive trolling remarks.

Bilko,

 

I agree with you in a small way, a micro way. Of course we all know these people who have done well, our peers, maybe you and me

Especially you and me. We shouldn't judge the world on what it should be, but rather what it is and what we're capable of. Now if I saw someone who was truely in need of help, my empathy and sympathy would drive me to help that person because I would not only feel bad for that person, but would also feel bad about myself if I didn't. My point in people taking responsibility for their own lives is just that. I can't expect the next person to feel the same way as I do about that kind of situation, and I darn sure can't mandate that they do. There is a difference in helping out your neighbor, who might be going through some hard times, and mandating that we give a handout to a whole nation in which a large part are likely to take advantage. I've personally seen it with the programs that we have already, and I strongly feel that we need to rein in the abuse of those programs before we even think about implementing a larger one.

 

But, you are guilty of skimming the data to make cheap shots, my point was a Macro point, and you know that. If you take 30 million people, look at the socio economic background, level of education a pattern will be evident. The rich will get a better start in life, a better education and be able to make better choices. Surely you can see this. On another thread you made a point that you didn't necessarily agree with every point that you made, you were just offering alternative points of view. I respect that I would much rather examine a subject from a variety of angles. But surely there comes a point when you start to learn, apreciate the data and interpret it, not just reaching for the cheap shots

So what you're basing your argument on is that it is unfair that there are rich people. It is unfair that someone can make good decisions in their lives so that the future generations of their family have it better than they do. And that the future generations should bear the burden because of it. It has already been shown in this thread that the rich pay just as much for healthcare as the average citizen. Why should they pay more for the same product? Just because they made the right choices in life?

 

 

So what do you suggest for the poor, the sick, the weak and the lame. Some half rate system, or go to hell? Please dont say those people are provided for adequately, you know that they are not, you know that quality of Healthcare is directly linked to your ability to pay.

I expect the government to crack down on the abuse that is going on in their current programs. If they do that properly, then it would allow room to encompass the truly needy, instead of those who manipulate the system because they somehow feel entitled to something free from their government.

 

 

John,

 

No, you need to understand that responsibility goes hand -in -hand with power.

I do. And each and every person in this world has the power to work towards their future.

 

 

Sorry, I can't parse that, never mind reply, but I will say this.

It's fair to say that the countries with largely black populations are often poor. They have little money for healthcare and their populations suffer.

That has nothing much to do with the issues of comparing the US with most of the Western world.

That comparison is where the US gets conspicuously poor value for money.

What? I was talking about population of black decendants of NHS nations compared to the population of the US. What are you talking about?

 

 

Yes, that's all very well.

But the data clearly doesn't know it is meant to support your ideas. It shows that not only as an aggregate, but individually, the united states spend more money (as a % of GDP or in absolute terms) than practically everyone else.

Yes it does. Hence the blue line in the graph. That is exactly what I was talking about.

 

 

Straw man.

I never said that there were no differences.

I beg to differ.

Your replies in Post #2

How not?

They count dead babies. It's not rocket science.

I posted data on infant mortality and death rates.

I chose those data because they are pretty robust. Diagnostic criteria for "dead" are fairly consistent across the world.

 

 

What I said was that it's relatively simple to count dead babies. It is. That's why it's a relatively robust statistic.

So we can go ahead and ignore the fact that different countries use different criteria succh as weight, function, and age, when here in the US the smallest indication of life is reported? You don't think that even remotely throws the figures off? And even that coupled with my other arguements on the subject don't add up to this larger mortality number? I don't believe I'm the one ignoring things here.

 

 

Yes, but clearly only in relative terms. So, for example, compared to the US, Japan has quite a good death rate for infants.

It gets this without spending as much money as the US too.

This supports my take on the matter http://health.usnews...0924/2healy.htm

 

As you say, if you are comparing that to much of Europe where the population is very largely white then the best the US can do - the death rate among white babies- is worse than the typical figures for Europe- largely the death rate for white babies.

You're going to have to prove this assertion. When I make statements like this someone always demands me to show evidence. It's ah...what does iNow call it...oh yeah, drawing a conclusion from incredulity.

 

Oh, BTW I freely accept that I don't know what those "bad" figures are but since your own source says that are bad you can either agree with me or argue against yourself.

If the figures are not "bad" then the source of your information is incorrect and so you just shot down your own argument.

It says they are bad. It doesn't say that they are worse than the rest of the world.

 

Why are you so keen to defend a system that costs you much more money to get worse care?

I refer you to the top of this post where I mention to Sgt. Bilko about our current government programs. And secondly because I enjoy the freedom of choice which will have a chance to be taken if a government is allowed to dictate it.

 

 

 

Zapatos,

 

Yes, freedom.

 

And don't forget these:

 

bin laden is evil!

Support our troops!

School prayer!

Lamestream media!

Barack HUSSEIN Obama!

NATURALIZED CITIZEN!

ILLEGAL ALIENS!

My wife yes, my dog maybe, my gun NEVER!

Evolution is only a THEORY!

USA! USA! USA! (with a nod to iNow)

OOH, you got me there.

 

 

 

iNow,

 

I, too, struggle with this question enormously.

It's a result of you taking the information given to you for granted as being factual and listening to people that would have you believe that America is the real evil in the world.

 

If you're at the poverty level, you get Medicaid. If you're not at the poverty level, you can find coverage or pay the tax.

It seems that we already do this, just without the punishment fee.

 

 

 

A Trip,

 

I suppose I am being a college kid and only having a part time job. But I am not eligible for Medicaid as I checked due to recent medical issues. Under this, I would be forced to have insurance I cannot afford.

Have you even looked for something you could afford? And, is there a reason that you can't get a full time job so you can afford it?

Bilko,

 

Justin, you can only make a good choice if you have the education to make that choice, the rich get a better education than the poor and so the cycle continues.

Not to the point of not being able to provide for yourself and your family. A lot of the successfull people I know didn't even get a high school diploma.

 

 

Zapatos,

 

Yes, I agree. The broader point I was trying to make was that the emergency room is not a substitute for health insurance.

And my return point was that they will keep you alive until you can provide yourself health insurance. That which you should have already provided for yourself.

 

 

Supplying me with a lifetime of blood pressure medicine is cheaper to the healthcare system than the expense incurred if I have a heart attack.

At which I shrug my shoulders and think "that is the price we pay for freedom". I never said the cost was cheap did I?

Captain,

 

It's quite important for the USA that everybody knows that they are the strongest... that prevents a lot of conflicts.

You said so yourself. So why do you think of it as a bad thing? There's is one thing you won't see from us and that's the use of unwarranted threats like those from North Korea or Iran. The shooting off of rockets against international treaty or the shooting down of public aircraft without confirming intent. I would say that we have made our fair share of mistakes, but there is a reason that we remain stronger than the rest and show that strength. You've already asserted that fact and I'm wondering why you disagree with it?

 

 

We also have a navy, an army, and an airforce. But there is no tv show about it. We don't show off.

Can you imagine what we would think if you did? Please don't take that wrong, it just gave me a little chuckle when I read it.

iNow,

 

There's also this, but I do feel like I'm repeating myself in front of a deaf audience, or flogging a long deceased equine animal:

Yeah you are repeating yourself. We're back to "the rich don't pay their fair share" boohoohoo. Do I need to give the whole "personal responsibility" speech again. Them pesky ass wealthy people, damn them for making the right choices with their lives.

 

 

The rich pay just as much for their healthcare as the average person does. Why should they pay more? Because they're rich? They should be made to carry the people, who make poor decisions, on their backs. They should be responsible for people that won't take responsibility for themselves? And the government should force them to do this? Yeah, that's what this country was built on. And so the Tyranny begins.

 

Do you have a reply for my last rebuttal on the majority of which country are black? And if there could possibly be any other factors in these mortality ratings other than it's because of our "supposedly s***y healthcare"?

 

 

 

John,

 

Once I see a lot of replies like "I can't agree with you. You haven't given me anything that can't be disputed. " when the data I used was that cited by Justin himself

The data you're talking about was being used to make an entirely different point than you were suggesting from it. I explained in my last reply to you of what I was refering to.

 

"Now keep in mind these are economists talking so who knows..."

This was just a comment that reflected economists job as a whole with the most recent recession. I thought dry humor was big over in your part of the world. I guess I was wrong.

 

and even just "Bah" in reply to the observation that people without healthcare insurance don't get healthcare I start thinking I'm not involved in a discussion, I'm talking to a troll.

I've never replied with just BAH. As I recall my rebuttal followed immediately.

 

 

That would certainly explain the otherwise absurd choice of a right-wing group's bad statistics over the report from the World Health Organisation and the insistence that differences in reporting are the major reason for the poor infant mortality rate in the US.

As I recall I've asserted two different reasons of why infant mortality rates shouldn't be used in the healthcare argument. And instead of attacking the validity of it, you seem to say that they are just right-wings bad statistics, without even saying how there bad. If they're bad, tell me how. It also seems to me that I pointed out that the WHO were equally as biased in support of government run programs. But do I blow the group off as left-wing nut jobs? No, I don't. I just pick apart how they gather their information and list factors that they do not take into consideration when comparing two fundamentally different systems.

Can you say that there are no differences in reporting when it comes to infant mortality rates? You've said so before, but I recall finding out differently.

 

 

By the way, the source you cite for the difference between death rates of black and white babies (which I accept is a real difference, and worrying) also says

"Colorado's numbers closely follow the national statistics, which are not good even for white babies. ".

So, once again your own source supports the exact opposite of your contention.

No it doesn't. I never said that whites don't have infant mortality rates as well. I just said that blacks were two and sometimes three times as bad.

 

 

Even for white babies the death rates are bad.

Christ man, is there such thing as a good death rate.

 

 

The larger number of black people in the states compared to, for example, England will emphasise the difference.

But since the figures are bad for white babies you can't say that the overall bad figure is due to racial factors (whatever they may be).

I think by your own admission you concede to my point here. Do you even know the "BAD" figures for whites? And I can make that assertion when one group's rate is two and three times higher than the other group. I think you just want to twist this around to your own view point, but can't quite get it done. Or maybe that's just me being a troll again.

 

Zapatos,

 

This is not quite accurate. Whether or not you receive treatment without insurance depends in large part on what it is you are walking in with.

Thank you for the correction. While what you say is true, the fact is that the ER will make sure that none of those things are killing you at the moment.

 

 

 

Another question I have is... Does anyone know why those people aren't on one of the government programs if they can't afford to buy private insurance.

One question...who drinks ice tea while they eat skittles? I find that highly suspicious in itself.

iNow,

 

Why am I bothering with you if you so summarily dismiss studies published by the American Journal of Public Health?

Because it based it's study off of what the family members thought was the reason for them not going to the hospital. If you want to base this argument off of sob stories just let me know. I'm sure I can produce many that come from NHS nations. You can't tell me that the camera operator who had an appendicitis couldn't have walked into an ER with his symptoms and wouldn't have been treated because he lacked health insurance. If he thought the cost was too much, then he was under a false illusion. Death doesn't cost him a thing. Which one would you have chosen?

 

Not to mention, why should I accept figures from the American Journal of Health (that conducts it's studies with universities that have been known for it's biased political views) over the Institute of Medicine (who have remained fairly independant without any rumors of political/social bias)?

 

 

This is only a valid argument if you know up-front that your non-action (a choice not to go to the ER) will result in death... and, since people generally don't know with any certainty that a failure to act will cause them to die... your argument is ultimately invalid and rendered entirely moot.

Are you seriously saying that someone with an appendicitis doesn't know that something is terribly wrong with them. I guess I could see this point in some cases, but not with an overwhelming majority of these people as you would have me believe.

 

18K is an older estimate, but even if I accept that lower number, it only takes 1 person to die for lack of healthcare to support the position you assumed was taken by Toastywombel... It only takes one to rebut the inherent assertion you put forth (that people don't die due to lack of healthcare coverage). I have 18,000 - 45,000 "persons dying for lack of healthcare," which... last time I checked, is more than one... so this serves as yet another interaction with you on this thread where your position is shown to be not only weak, but flat out wrong. Would you like to see what's behind door #2, perhaps?

When the hell did I say that NO ONE ever dies from lack of healthcare. I just don't agree in making it sound like people are dropping like flies out in the streets due to the lack of healthcare. And my entire point was that these people could have gone to an ER for treatment. Do people in NHS nations die from not going to the hospital when they should? Do they? I wonder how many out of a population as big as ours?

 

You're drawing a conclusion from incredulity, not from data, and that's part of why I find it so easy to dismiss your position as both foolish and uninformed.

Which part? The part where African American have an exponentially higher rate of infant mortality? Or the part where blacks make up 12.6% of our population compared to 2% of the UK's? Or is it the part where the at-risk babies are born to black women without regard to income or education? What part can I not reach a fair assumption from?

 

Fine. Let me take a different approach. The higher population of black people in the US than the UK is irrelevant to the question of infant mortality rate since the population differences (% of blacks versus % of whites) is not a common trend across all of the other countries that ALSO have a lower infant mortality rate than the US... In a number of those countries, the population is majority black... You know, like Cuba or French Polynesia... and yet they somehow manage to have lower infant mortality rates... So, no. I DON'T think that has anything to do with the infant mortality rate being higher in the US.

 

https://www.cia.gov/...r/2091rank.html

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but facts still matter in discussions like this, right?

Yeah they do matter. Like the link you provided me stated that in French Polynesia, polynesians made up 78% of the population. Last time I checked polynesians weren't black. And in Cuba 65% of the population is white. Hardly a majority of blacks in either of the countries you cited. The reason that the UK was picked was because it had one of the most abundant population of African or black decendants of NHS nations.

 

And yet... Despite that "suppression of the amount of healthcare," they still somehow manage to do better than the US on nearly every relevant metric of quality and outcome.

I still doubt this statement. The only fair point that I've heard so far is that we spend too much on it. But that can be adressed in different ways other than changing our system into a government run system.

 

 

John,

 

So , for example, most of the US states are to the left of the point marked as Norway. That means they have less cash than Norway.

So most of them would be expected to spend less than Norway.

We have a different system than Norway. As where Norway supresses their spending, Americans are free to spend however much they want.

 

The line in the graph is where spending meets outcome. Where you can say that one no longer gets a "bang for their buck". Now keep in mind these are economists talking so who knows...

 

But when you say this

The US spends roughly twice as much on healthcare as you would expect, and they don't get as good a service for it.

I can't agree with you. You haven't given me anything that can't be disputed. And in my mind a transformation of our system needs to be for reasons that have more weight to them.

this is a science forum, you are all supposed to be geniuses...

 

We are, don't you know that?

 

 

Obviously this was a case of a black youth being racially profiled, which led to his death as a result. But the fact that we are even discussing this story in this forum is just more proof that the media is pushing a political/social agenda by being selective about what it does and does not show on televission.

Here is just one example of a story Americans never saw in their national media:

http://mylifeofcrime...-murder-123092/

I think we all know what would have been in the media had the a gang of white men done the same to a black...

 

Yeah, you're probably right. Maybe they just see white on black crime as more of a story than black on white crime. Plus if the stats are true, black on black crime is more prevailant than either. You would think that Rev.Jesse Jackson would get on board to stop the violence between themselves in their own community.(hopefully without inciting violence with anyone else) But I believe with the actions of the social activists that speakout on behalf of the African American community in this country that they are more interested in a political agenda rather than solving real issues. And I'm not saying that things like this Martin/Zimmerman case are not real issues, but you would think that popular figures in social groups would lend their voices at other times to things like prison population, education, job skills, crime rates, etc... But, and this might have more to do with the media than anything, the only time the majority of this country ever hears from those figures is when something that can be construde as racist happens. I guess all I'm really saying is that I would like to see those social/community organizers doing more for their community than just raising hell when something like this happens. If they did have more of a voice on regular issues, they might have more of a impact on issues where racism is involved.(and hopefully a peacefull impact)

I believe that the biggest change affecting the future of the United States will be changing demographics.

Significant racial differences do indeed exist, and this will have a big impact on the country.

Poverty and crime will increase, and the country will sink further down in world educational rankings.

Why the change in demographics? Do you see a growth in immigration to the US more than there has been over the past decade or two? I know that some of the liberal dems are talking about amnesty, but I doubt they will get anything passed that is that dramatic. It seems to me that any racial differences that exist in the US have always existed. So why do you feel such a big change in demographic?

ewmon,

 

The police released Zimmerman the next day without charging him, apparently without taking a mugshot (as the police haven't released any mugshot), and the police seemed to release him without confiscating his gun (after his release) or determining that it was his gun that shot Martin. I doubt Florida's state crime lab completed a ballistics test in less than a day.

Yeah, I myself have had a horrible experience with Florida's crime lab. Though I'm sure it's not the same one, nothing would surprise me after the clash I had with them.

 

Now there's two voice forensic experts claiming that the calls for help were not made by Zimmerman. I'd expect to find a few forensic experts who would make such a claim because it's somewhat easy to claim it's not Zimmerman's voice when you don't have Martin's voice for comparison, so I question their opinions; however, this is bound to stir the public.

Maybe that is someone's intention. You know how the public likes a good scandal.

 

I don't know...some things seem mighty suspicious, while on the other hand I keep telling myself that there has to be a reason for officials to be acting like Zimmerman is innocent.

 

 

 

Just out of curiousity, what are the qualifications of becoming a forensic voice expert. I've never heard of one.

iNow

 

I have a few problems with that. (you knew I would)

from your link,

 

A freelance cameraman's appendix ruptured and by the time he was admitted to surgery, it was too late. A self-employed mother of two is found dead in bed from undiagnosed heart disease. A 26-year-old aspiring fashion designer collapsed in her bathroom after feeling unusually fatigued for days.

 

What all three of these people have in common is that they experienced symptoms, but didn't seek care because they were uninsured and they worried about the hospital expense, according to their families. All three died.

 

First of all, you mean to tell me that these people couldn't get treated for their lack of insurance? Bah..the part I bolded explains it all. They CHOSE not to seek medical attention. If you're experiencing symptoms of something that has the potential to kill you, are you not going to go to the ER? Owing someone money is better than being dead. Not to mention medical bills will not affect your credit as long as you pay on them. It doesn't matter if it's five dollars a month, as long as you pay SOMETHING on them you don't have to worry about them affecting your credit. So what is the real reason people like that choose not to go to the hospital?

 

The second problem I have is with the estimate itself. The lowest estimate I've read so far has been 18000. So we're somewhere between 18000 and 45000. That's an awfull big gap and one that could be chocked up to stupidity or laziness for not going to the ER when they should have.

 

Or... you know... they might be more likely to lack healthcare coverage than non-minorities.

Pay attention man. I've bolded the important part.

Beam noticed something else. These high-risk babies were being born to black women regardless of how much money they made, or their level of education. Beam started digging into the healthy baby gap, and she's been dedicated to solving the mystery ever since.

The fact of this matter is that no one knows why the numbers are so much larger for African Americans than whites or hispanics. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with healthcare.

 

You still didn't answer my question. With 6 times the population of blacks in the US compared to the UK, wouldn't it be safe to assume that this is one of the reasons our numbers are higher? And that considering the numbers (US 38 million-UK 1.5 million), it's great that our numbers aren't even higher.

 

John,

 

Now, from my point of view as a consumer of healthcare the per capitum expenditure on it is the same as the price I pay for it.

Were you trying to imply that I had misunderstood it?

No, but I was implying that you misread the whole point of the graph. I believe, at the time, I was trying to relate the fact that our purchasing power far exceeds the rest of the world and this could be one of the reasons that we spend more per capita.

 

From the link, this is the point I was trying to make there.

 

the United States is, collectively, spending about as much as we should expect on health care with respect to its economic output. Nations with long established universal health care programs are, in effect, achieving their lower expenditures by suppressing the amount of health care their populations may receive below the more natural, unconstrained levels that we see in nations without such established national health care programs.

ewmon,

 

Zimmerman says about Martin: "a real suspicious guy ..... up to no good ..... on drugs or something ..... has his hand in his waistband ..... something's wrong with him ..... he's got something in his hands ..... these assholes ..... always get away ..... these fucking punks". In his own words, the would-be shooter Zimmerman already sees Martin as a "[possibly-armed, doped-up] fucking asshole [criminal]".

If this is the case then I can definitely see your point. If this is the way Zimmerman was thinking before the incident happened then the police were justified in telling him to back off, Martin would have had every right to be fearful, and Zimmerman's intentions appear to be starting trouble rather than defending his neighborhood against it.

Phi,

 

Seriously, why are we discussing this with you then?

I don't recall demanding that you remain in the discussion. If you're that exasperated feel free to leave it at anytime.

 

You're arguing that the current US healthcare system is superior to anything from a foreign country.

Yes I am. For the most part I am.

 

No amount of evidence to the contrary seems to make any difference to you.

Nobody's presented any that can be used to justify a change to universal healthcare from private.

 

 

You haven't shown why it's better to pay double, even though you can't show that the US system is twice as good

The price tag for the US healthcare system is probably the only legitamate argument I've heard so far. Even though I would pay more for better quality. That of which I will get into in more detail in just a minute.

 

 

Toasty,

If one wants to live in a country where every person has access to healthcare then the "wait time" problem should be solved through bolstering the medical infrastructure in the given country (Doctors, hospitals, specialists, and etc.). If one takes your argument, however, and wishes to solve the "wait time" problem with limiting access to healthcare for a significant portion of the population, it is simply saying that one prefers the convenience of a quick waiting period to get access to needed healthcare over providing for the society. And when it is put in that perspective it is quite a selfish stance.

 

In more simplistic terms. If a large portion of people in a given society could not afford to go to the store to get food, sure the wait time for those who can afford to go to the store will be lessened. But the ultimate cost would be a significant group of people starving in the streets. So the question comes down to this. Would you prefer a more convenient system at the expense of neglecting a large portion of society?

You're implying that Americans are dying on the streets for lack of healthcare coverage? Anyone from anywhere can walk into an ER at anytime and recieve treatment.

Not to mention, if we look at this like John looks at mortality rates we could say, "if there's more then we should assume that the system is worse." Overcrowded hospitals could imply an unhealthier community, but I'm not going to argue that view since it would be incorrect.

 

My point in arguing wait times was for the simple fact that people are wanting to change the system to make it better. Longer wait times do not imply a better system in my mind.

 

An awesome read, McTeague by Frank Norris, can serve as a microcosm of this. The human condition degrades into an animal like state when such humans fall into poverty.

And we already have programs that cover those who can be considered in the poverty level, so there really isn't a need to withdraw into this state of instinctive criminal behavior.

 

 

I suppose I just felt the need to voice my opinion on this matter.

Your opinion is always welcome.

 

 

Now, back to some more info on infant mortality ratings and another cause as to why the US' is higher than those in Western Europe. This was pointed out to me the other day and normally I wouldn't look at race to justify an argument, but the gap in percentages were quite large and shouldn't be ignored when talking about mortality rates.

 

http://www.kunc.org/post/why-african-american-infant-mortality-rate-so-high

From link,

Beam noticed something else. These high-risk babies were being born to black women regardless of how much money they made, or their level of education. Beam started digging into the healthy baby gap, and she’s been dedicated to solving the mystery ever since.

 

Over the last two decades, research has confirmed that African-American babies die at two or three times the rate of other infants. But still, no one knows why.

 

The latest Colorado numbers from the Centers for Disease Control show that in 2007, the black infant mortality rate was 13.5 out of every 1000 live births, compared to 5.2 for whites and 7 for Hispanics.

 

 

It seems that African Americans have a much higher rate of infant mortality than either whites or hispanics. Up to two or three times the rate in some cases. Now, since the population of blacks in the US is 12.6% compared to 2% in the U.K., and since the highest rate of pregnancies are among minorities, couldn't this be a reason that the US sees higher infant mortality rates?

I argue a point as a reason to NOT have healthcare, and you rebut with a something that doesn't even apply to the situation. Is this how you handle all your arguments?

 

The point is that countries with universal coverage ALSO do better than the US in terms of providing care in time critical situations.

I just gave a reason as to why.

 

Stack on top of that the fact that they do so at a lower cost

Sure I wonder how those wait times help cut those costs? There may be a couple of exceptions, but not many.

 

 

achieve higher quality

You use a couple of things to prove your point on this. One I knew had to have a reasonable explanation, since I know our quality is the best, and since it was so eloquently pointed out to me earlier I can't help but mention it. If I had more time I would do that very thing this instant, but it's going to have to wait until tomorrow I'm afraid.

 

provide care for everyone

Keep telling yourself that, somethings I wouldn't trade for piece of mind. Especially that kind.

Oh I've been doing some reading up on some of these organizations you keep spitting out information from. This is the Commonwealth's mission statement.

The Commonwealth Fund, among the first private foundations started by a woman philanthropist—Anna M. Harkness—was established in 1918 with the broad charge to enhance the common good.

 

 

The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.

 

 

The Fund carries out this mandate by supporting independent research on health care issues and making grants to improve health care practice and policy. An international program in health policy is designed to stimulate innovative policies and practices in the United States and other industrialized countries.

Now how can you bash my sources for being biased when yours are just as biased. An advocacy group is still an advocacy group, no matter how you want to spin it.

 

 

 

iNow,

 

And your position was shown to be lacking and outdated by my more current sources. Why are we still talking about this? Your argument was shown to be specious.

 

Accept that and move on, please.

I believe I asked a question. How can your "critical-time" dilemma be a reason that supports the change to universal healthcare?

Your source was from 1990. Mine was from 2007 and 2008. I have no idea what you're looking at or talking about any more.

And my other sources were from 1998 and 2001. I was using them to establish that waiting times are a problem. If this part of our argument is just about doctors being over-booked and not working after-hours, then this problem is simple to explain. There are not enough doctors and those that there are work a full work day, in regular workday hours. (just like the majority of the country work at this same well established timeline) Would you have every general practitioner be on call 24hrs a day and through the weekend just because someone doesn't want to go to the ER if their doctor's office isn't open? And how can this "critical time" dilemma possibly be one of the reasons to support a universal healthcare stance? From what I see this critical-time problem doesn't relate to healthcare quality rather than quantity, which wont be solved by adding millions of more potential patients without adding doctors too. What, are we going to have the government start mandating who does what job and where? Are we going to have to pay out incentives for more people to go to med school. I'm sure that would help to cut costs. I hope I have the meaning of this "critical-time" phrase correct.

toasty,

 

When did I ever argue the poor have been in charge? I didn't even mention the demographic you were referring to, "the poor". I think you are simply looking to bait an argument.

No not really, but the way you said "we are heading for a world where the wealthiest are in control" seemed to imply that it hasn't always been so. And maybe I said poor wrong. Maybe I should have said the slightly less wealthy? Or the "not so poor, but definately not the wealthiest"? I'm fairly decent at baiting an argument, but this was not the case. I was just pointing out how your assertion was wrong in my opinion.

 

 

I think you would be hard-pressed to prove such a statement. I can think of several examples where this isn't the case.

Name 2.

 

 

Mississippi,

 

I speculate that in this country we will continue to see a growing difference in the political and religious beliefs of the major urban centers and the rural states.

It's just one of them things that change with the times. I've heard it said that todays moderate republicans are just pre-60's moderate democrats with a new name. I don't know how true this is, but it goes to show you how things flow with the times and politics change with the situation.

toasty,

 

I find that your last post is wrong in at least one fundamental way. When throughout history have the poor been in charge? The wealthiest have always been in charge in every civilization

john5746,

 

Well, that's the rationale for giving the police the benefit. Setting aside race, departments are comprised of individuals. Individuals do make mistakes, sometimes with malice, sometimes by carelessness. We do know that when these mistakes are made, departments(any depts, not just police) don't do the best job of policing themselves. They also give themselves the benefit of the doubt.

I was refering to their exposure to these types of situations. They see these kinds of things more than your average citizen, so they will be more used to it and probably more capable of understanding the situation quicker than your average citizens. Although I will agree to your assessment in that people make mistakes. And they are not always good at taking responsibility for those mistakes. So I can see where you're coming from.

IsraelUnoone,

 

Two tuning fork with a other creating a cross perpendicular (bird eye view) upside down that connects both ends to a stem that is a ball- this ball is focal point of where the energy meets from ground and space. This in rotation creates energy by itself yet the problem is that power is needed to make it amplify.

It seems that this sort of contraption will never harness enough energy for work. Or to power something. So what is the point of the object and how are these vibrations significant from other detectable wave frequencies?

 

edit because cross posted with Royston. He does say the ball rotates, so if these tuning forks make the ball spin then there is at least some output. But I don't see in anyway it could be enhanced.

imatfaal,

 

there is a fair amount of historical precedent that the reason for the police's attitude is that the dead person is a young black man.

Could be, I guess it's possible. I'm not sure how to respond. I have conflicting feelings about the subject. On one hand it would be a shame if people really were that callus about such a thing. On the other hand, I guess just depending on where you're at, it could be somewhat of a norm to see that most murder victims are young black men.

 

 

But in a modern society with the rule of law we make sure we know what the reason you refer to is

Sure. Has the whole report come out yet? I haven't heard and I'm curious as to the circumstances of the situation and the reason that he gives for feeling justified in pursuit when specifically requested not to.

iNow,

 

I think you're being disingenuous here, but I have no way of knowing so will let it go. For future reference, you seem to be referring to UHC... or "universal healthcare," not the NHS, which is what they call the health services in England.

What's the difference. I'm sure they're slightly different considering policies applied to resolve the issues, but the principle is the same isn't it?

 

Yes. They say exactly the same thing I've been saying now for several pages. Countries with universal healthcare systems seem to have longer wait times for elective surgeries and care that is not time critical. Your sources only reinforce this point. You seem to be ignoring the more important factor, however, wherein care which is time-critical takes LONGER to receive in the US than in those other countries.

Maybe I'm not understanding what you are talking about when you say time critical. When you say time critical I think emergency or critical care, and most of the information I've found with ER waiting times has the US doing better than most. If this is not what you are implying please explain.

I can agree with that. I haven't really been following too closely and didn't know what the facts were. My assumptions were based strictly on the actions of those who took control of the scene after the fact.

 

This is why we don't allow mob rule. But, something that is interesting to me is that when I hear these things reported, I always give benefit of the doubt to the police. I figure there is obviously more to the story that will explain their actions. Other people distrust police automatically. So, we all have bias and we need to be careful about rushing to judgements.

Exactly, it's not like they don't know a situation for what it is. It's their job. If they weren't acting like Zimmerman was a cold blooded murderer then there has to be a reason.

 

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that police departments or any authority has much more power than individuals, so in this case if you could imagine what Martin's parents could do on their own to make sure justice is done vs the police.

Yeah I guess it's up to what they report as to whether the DA sees fit to press charges.

John,

 

and I have pointed out that the US's own health watchdog says that you pretty much can, in spite of the issues you raised.

Well at least you admit they are issues finally. Who's the watch dog?

 

 

You have asserted it repeatedly. You have shown that the comparison is complex- but as I have pointed out, it is possible to make the comparison.

When you do so you find that the US still pays roughly twice as much for a service that isn't as good.

No, as I recall you said it was too long and boreing for you too read when I presented the graph. You remember, the ones with all the little dots that you thought were price comparisons. Post #31 I believe it was. This is what you said

It's quite a long and complex page and I really don't have time to rubbish each part of it in turn.

 

 

Phi,

 

My point was that we shouldn't be thinking of healthcare in terms of emergency only.

Who does? That sentence once combined witht the analogy sure doesn't. IT, was talking about making emergency phone calls.

 

And it makes me more adamant than ever that we need to stop paying double for insurance that often fails us just when we need it most.

My insurance didn't fail me. Twice it was my insides and the rest was my own stupid ass fault. And guess what? The first time I was 5 and my parents didn't have insurance. (oh no!) I'm still kickin', to the dismay of a number of people.

 

I don't know what you do for a living Justin.

Funny you should mention it. I work for Enron. Now renamed EOG resources that drill for oil and gas. They bought two silica sand plants down my way to corner the market in frac sand. I guess it's just cheaper if you own the sand plant rather than buy the sand from others. I knew you would get a kick out of it. I sure did.

iNow,

 

Yes, much as my sources said. We weren't talking about Canada. We were talking about NHS. NHS Canadian Medicare system. You're either moving the goal posts now that your original point was shown to be bunk, or you are conflating the universal healthcare systems of multiple countries without even knowing it. Neither of those options speak well of your ability to argue this issue reasonably.

I thought we were talking about National Healthcare Systems in general. Hence "NHS nations".

 

 

But here are some examples: This is from the OECD Here: http://www.oecd.org/.../32/5162353.pdf

 

 

 

 

Table 1. Waiting between specialist appointment and surgical intervention

 

% of patients waiting for surgery more than 12 weeks (year 1990)

 

Germany 19.4

 

Hungary 13.3

 

Italy 36.3

 

Netherlands 15.2

 

Norway 28.0

 

Portugal 58.1

 

Spain 18.5

 

Switzerland 16.1

 

United Kingdom 41.7

 

 

And:Table 2. Percentage of patients waiting for elective surgery more than 4 months

 

Base: Those with elective surgery in the past 2 years (%)

 

Year 1998 Year 2001

 

Australia 17 23

 

Canada 12 27

 

New Zealand 22 26

 

United Kingdom 33 38

 

United States 1 5

 

Hmmm....

Oh here's a more recent one from the OECD: http://www.oecd-ilib...application/pdf

 

Not sure your point. You said that you "feel that the data says one thing" and I said that the data we shared says something else entirely, so your feelings are not really relevant. This is not a valid comparison, but I am sensing a theme in your posts. Broken logic. Lack of valid premises. Poor comprehension. Little grasp of the facts.

That would be fine if you've provided any facts. I can hand pick mine also. I bet the OECD is right-wing also?

 

Which source? There were about 6 of them shared, and each showed that risk of litigation and practitioner insurance was barely a blip on the radar when it comes to the rise in medical costs.

You've just cited it. What medical costs? There is a difference in the price that a private doctor charges a patient who pays out of pocket and what is charged to an insurance company.

 

John,

 

"WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends."

And I've stated the reason that those NORMS ans STANDARDS cannot be applied to this argument. It's hard to assess trends when the information being reported has different reporting criteria.

 

 

Now, for my personal tastes, being biassed in favour of evidence based policy seems better than being biassed against government.

And does that mean their data is manufactured or incorrect somehow. If so then how? I've already told you why the WHO's is incompareable to the argument. Hell, the WHO's data would even be bogus when comparing NHS nations against eachother. Explain to me how the methods of the NCPA don't apply.