JustinW

Some minor discussion of healthcare in other topics has forced me to do some reading on the subject. Since it wasn't the the origional subject in those threads, I thought I had better opportunity to discuss it at length if I created a new topic. So let's see if I can break down what the critics of the US's healthcare system say. Some people say that America spends more money on healthcare for a lower quality. While it's true we spend more money, I will have to beg to differ on the lower quality. It seems that most of the areas that are chosen to judge quality are chosen on results that they wish to recieve rather than taking into account the reasons for those numbers being the way they are. In a 2000 WHO study, the US was penalized under several highly subjective categories. Things like fairness, not having a sufficiently progressive tax system, not providing universal healthcare, and having a general paucity for social programs. It seems the study started out negative for the US before it actually even began. Hmmm... Life Expectancy: This is one I've heard quite a few times. I thought to myself that this couldn't be right. Not as much as our medical technology has advanced. Then once I started reading up, I had read where the American Enterprise Institute found that if you correct for homicides and accidents, the US moves to the top of the list. Hmmm...Try getting a healthcare system that keeps you from getting shot and walking off of a cliff. Maybe that's what we're going for. Infant Mortality: This is one of the talking points I've heard quite a bit also. It seems that there is a high infant mortality rate in the US. I wonder why...Over the past couple of decades high risk, low birth-weight infants have had a growing chance of survival, due to growing medical advancement. Some die not long after birth, which raises our infant mortality rate. But in other western countries, those high risk, low birth-weight infants aren't included like the US's are. Hmmm...Could it be because many of those countries use abortion to eliminate problem pregnancies? I would consider checking the abortion rate of any country with a low infant mortality rate. The US clearly out performs the rest of the world with specific diseases suc as cancer,pneumonia, heart disease, aids, etc...Chances of survival are far higher in the US than in other countries. In fact America has played key roles in over 80% of major medical advancements in the past 3 decades. If this was a matter in technological availability, then I refer you to Japan who has the availability but is not leading in advancement such as the US. When I think about changing our healthcare system and the way people want to change it, I don't think about it fixing our problems rather adding others. Like France having to raise copay costs to alleviate inflated cost and rising healthcare deficits. Now a French citezen ends up paying around 13 percent of their healthcare costs. Why does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, that's around the average that Americans pay. And we don't even want to mention Italy's system, or Norways for that matter, who have about 23% of all people that are referred for hospital admission waiting 3 months to be admitted. Just sayin'.

Rigney, I second Phi's questioning of this statement. I'm not quite sure where you're coming from or what you're intending to question. I was commenting on weather conditions because earlier in the thread people were discussing the amount of land that cattle take up that could be used for something else like vegetable growth. I noticed a comment about feeding cows corn and felt reasonably sure that they were commenting from a different perspective than I would have thought about it. When thinking about cattle feed you have take into account weather conditons. Here in Texas we have to worry mainly about water. A droubt would affect the amount of hay you can cut in a season, and availability of any washes that may retain water. While in cold weather you have to worry about water sources freezing, find shelter for your stock,etc... To keep from rambling too long, I was only mentioning this fact because a person usually has their perceptions based on what they're used to dealing with. And when talking about the room it takes to grow feed for cattle is impotant when considering what weather conditions they are being subjected to. Nothing important and rather trivial, so nothing to get excited about.

The only thing I would have to disagree with would be the timeline. Not that it is a fallacy, but foreign aid has changed a little since 2004. I guess that is just the last time it was updated from the link you've provided. As recently as a couple of years ago Pakistan was recieving nearly twice the aid that Israel was, and I'm sure it's gone up since then. I believe it was over 4 billion a year then.

This has actually been going on a while, it is just now in the spotlight because they want to pass a law about it. The hospital my mother-in-law works for has been doing this for years. They provide her with medical insurance, but any contraceptives she has to pay for herself. She provides her own contraception while her employers get to hold on to their religious sanctity. What's the problem with that?

Phi, I was relaying my amusement. I don't see how you can compare abortion and birth control to sex enhancement drugs in this case. The only reason it seems that this law is targeting women is the simple fact that the conditions that the religions are against can only aplly to women. If it were possible for men to end their pregnancies, (men being pregnant was the "wierd" comment that I was intellectually dishonest about), then I would assume this law would apply to them as well. The bill doesn't require her to agree with her husband/boyfriend either. It is ultimately only her choice (which I don't fully agree with either), therefore she is the only one responsible for the consequences and what comes with making those decisions. Most employers I have ever had dealings with have been anything but gallant, so you may have a point there. But this sort of thing has been happening for a while. My mother-in-law works for a catholic hospital. They have never allowed her to get birth control through her insurance plan. And again my point was, they pay for it, why make them pay for something that they fundamentally disagree on on more than a few levels? It's not like they can tell my mother-in-law that she can't use contraceptives, it's just that they won't pay for it. But to buy those contraceptives would be against their religion. Why do you feel it's alright to persecute religion by mandating that they pay for something that they are wholly against? Let women pay for it if there employer won't. Then their medical records won't be an issue. Zapatos, Good point, when put in that perspective, I can agree with that. But how can you let them into one aspect of your life without letting them into all aspects? I always find it amusing when people say " the government needs to do this for the good of the people". Then once they give it to them then turn right around and shout "We need our freedom". That makes a whole hell of a lot of sense. Phi, The last statement I said to zapatos,(last statement above) was refering to hypocracy, but it applies to the left democrat more than the right republican, although both are guilty to a point. I agree with the law as far as religious freedom goes. The fact that employers have to provide insurance to their employees that includes contraception is wrong. I believe that employer should have a right to opt out if they feel that it goes against their religious beliefs. By mandating that they do provide insurance that includes contraceptives is where freedom of religion is denied. As for women getting fired for it...doubtful. I'm sure there are a few wack jobs out there who might want to take advantage(if they could). But overall I think the majority of employers aren't just looking for reasons to fire their employees. It's not like they hire people just to see how fast they can fire them. They hire them to do a job, and if that person does a good job and proves to be well versed in their duties, an employer would have to be out of their mind to fire on such grounds. Not to mention in this day and age, who gets shocked when a woman tells you she's on the pill? How I see it, in these days it is automatically assumed that a woman is on the pill until she has said otherwise. So, more than likely their employer hired them on that kind of assumption, if they even thought about it in the first place. Which I doubt. I can see people now, sitting in an interview. Right in the middle of it the boss man looks up and asked "Do you use contraceptives?". Doubtful. It's weird how most people argue their point with a statement like that. All it is is a major accusation that the majority of people bad and will mistreat you at the first opportunity. And it is usually wildly out of the realm of what actually happens and who people are. Is it so hard to believe that people are basically good, and that wild assumption and what if's are usually inaccurate as hell.

A study by the Merritt Hawking and Associates found that 100% dermotologists in Atlanta accepted medicaid and by 2009 had dropped to 0. Same thing with cardiologists in Philly. It went from 80% in 2004 down to 8% in 2009. Just a couple of examples. And yes, the biggest doctor uprising did come from a group in Texas, and that is what brought it my attention(other than the signs hanging on the doors that said"we no longer accept medicaid"), people have been dropped in every state in the country. Damn, you got me. I didn't the government was so keen on keeping to their timelines. Or living up to guarantees. Really? Why don't you try looking at mortality rates for heart disease, cancer, stroke, etc... I'm pretty sure there's more. I had the funny feeling while looking up some of those stats, that only some were included while other examples may have given a plus to the US healthcare system. Who says I am? That's another reason I would prefer a flat tax. Then we could equally share in atrocity.

Could be. But. That can reasonably be denied.

It would be kinda weird if they didn't. And how is exactly is that a mistreatment? And my first point was, they're paying, their decision.

Color me ignorant but I think I'll speak. This conversation seems too one sided, so I think I can give you guys a few reasons to yell at me. Most employers pay for their employees health insurance, so why wouldn't they have a say in what kind of insurance that applies to? If you don't want them mandating what type of treatment they pay for, then pay for it yourself. Sounds kinda simple to me. Also sounds like people are whining that they're getting something for free but it's not good enough. Also a reasonable arguement(in my mind) on the whole ultrasound with abortion issue, is "why not"? (ignorant, I know) But you wouldn't want a woman to have an abortion without fully understanding exactly what they're doing would you? How many do you think may regret an abortion after they've had one? How many would have a change of heart after seeing that ultrasound? Do you think any would be greatfull afterward? I don't see what the big deal. You gotta look at what you kill. Can't be pullin' the trigger with your eyes closed. And if you have a bad feeling about doing it, then maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

I was just using that provide info that supported my thoughts. And anyway were they wrong? Did doctors not start dropping medicaid and medicare patients at a much higher rate? Did those countries switch from a private system in a short period of time? You think that might be the only reason that makes your statement true? What evidence? And doesn't this statement further prove my point that the profession in this country is profit driven? I also think you're dead wrong about the qualification also. We produce leading technologies, drugs, and facilities. I have a nagging suspicion that has something to do with the competitiveness that results from a profit driven system. Because our system is founded on capitalism. It's a business, and most doctors view it as such. So when the opportunity for profit leaves, so do those that view their practice as a business. http://heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/08/01/study-doctors-dropping-medicaidhttp://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/255120-doctors-increasingly-dropping-medicaid-medicare-some-even-private-insurance-too/ http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/health/policy/02medicaid.html http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2002/Sep-14-Sat-2002/news/19630314.html http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/24/news/economy/doctors_ditching_medicare_patients/ Want more? Do you not think that I have a basis for my arguement? How is this? How does universal healthcare affect doctors based on performance? What about the people who work for those doctors? Seems like they would lose their job too. And the people who work for them, and the insurance companies, and the people who work for them, and companies that provide their offices with supplies, and the people that work for them, and so on and so forth... oh wait, I guess all of those people wouldn't mind because they're just the cost that has been outweighed by the benifits. What the hell are you talking about? I was arguing that the profession would see a decrease in doctors if it was ran by the government. I have already showed that doctors started dumping medicaid and medicare patients because the government wasn't reimbursing them their fees. That should be enough warning needed to tell what will happen if the whole system is run by the government. Phi, And this was the reason for them dumping medicaid and medicare patients. Why will it be any different once the whole thing is ran by the government? I don't think so. I haven't spoken to alot who like the notion. Maybe they're living in the same fantasy land as me. I have. Ask them how long they have to wait to get a reimbursment from a government program. This is why most that have dropped medicaid and medicare still accept private insurance. They may have to wait in some cases, but not nearly as long.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123993462778328019.html There is at least one downside that I think some are forgetting. The number of college grads fell too if I'm not mistaken. So we're talking about a doctor shortage if a government run program takes over. These doctors don't want to work for the government, and I believe that is the reason the US can't just jump from one to the other. European countries are used to this type of system, but it would take the US some time to acclimate, and during that time people would suffer. Millions would lose their jobs along with the others who won't have a physician. The medical community is smart, and they do what they do to make money. If they can no longer make money they will find another way.

Though you also run the risk of the moisture softening the rice. But at least then it could be a chicken and rice meal instead of just plain old chicken.

Leader bee did have a good idea, which brought this to mind: Wouldn't uncooked grains of rice work also? It would soak up the moisture without the unwanted taste that salt would give.

Yeah, weather conditions are like that here in Texas at times too. I just commented on the ranching phrase because it gave me hint that you weren't from my kneck of the woods and I started wondering what kind of conditions you had to deal with, which would have an impact on what kind of feed that's needed.

I was thinking the other day(if you can believe it), after hearing how supernova flatten out when collapsing and then explode, emitting two jets. For some reason I thought of an analogy using two plungers being put head to head, with the handles representing the jets. If the plungers are pushed together, the heads flatten out, but when pulled apart, they form a suction/vacuum. I thought about this as it applied to a star. What if it is not the explosion or stars density collapsing that causes the blackhole, but the vacuum created by the pull of the two sides bouncing back after the explosion, that form the jets? Could a blackhole just be a place where a perfect vacuum exists? And when you think about it, the whole mass of the star is not enough to account for the seeming infinite density of the singularity. Tell me where my thinking is wrong on this and why this idea couldn't be right. Iknow it has to be wrong, but where?

As stars explode they not only form heavier elements, like oxygen and carbon, but also leave behind materials that make up new stars that are less massive. Since the new stars can never be as strong as the old ones, what does the future hold for stars in general? In this scenario, stars, life, and even black holes will be a thing of the past? If so it's kind of depressing to think that we will never be able to outrun our own extinction. I've heard about a so called "death star" galaxy, galaxy 3c321, that has been emitting a plasma jet at twice the SOL for over 2 million years. This plasma is made up of ions and electrons and it is thought that the magnetic fields coupled with the very high rate of rotation is responsible for the power of this jet. But how can these particles in this jet be faster than the SOL? I thought that was the cosmic speed limit of any known particles. I have heard about wondering stars that are ejected out of a system to wonder the cosmos. Observed? Just likely? How do we know other than speculating the high probability? The "void" is an interesting concept. Some have attributed it to the very "fabric" of space all the way down to the make up of atoms(the reason why they are mostly hollow). What are your thoughts on the subject and does anyone think that we will ever be able to test this idea? In 1843 a spuernova formed the Eta Corina nebula that has enough mass to collapse into a black hole within the next million years. I had thought that nebula usually ignite into stars rather than skip right into supernova. Is it possible that a nebula can collapse like that? What exactly is the process that tells us the relative age of the universe. Is it a mathematical calculation that tracks trajectories back to their origins, or is there some other means that give us an affirmative time? Why couldn't dark energy be thought of as the opposite of gravity? Does anyone say whether or not gravity was created by the BB? Or could it have already been there and it was the BB that gave it something(matter) to act upon? I've heard some say that dark energy was created in the BB, but could it not also be that it too was always there as an intrensic value? Are there any models that may explain what they are, where they came from, and how they work? They say that life may be present in ice on moons or in oceans on moons, but doesn't life need some heavier elements, like carbon and such, to form life? And wouldn't the absence of a molten core mean that these heavier elements are likely not present? If jupiter is made up mostly of hydrogen and helium, is it's gravity just not strong enough to ignite these elements? Is it not massive enough? If jupiter is such a catalist in projecting asteroids towards earth at such high velocities, then why are we not following Near Jupiter Objects the same as we follow Near Earth Objects? Or do we? I think that's all the questions I have for now. More are sure to follow.

If you don't mind me asking Trip, what part of the country are you from. Not that it matters, it is just that, generally down in the south we refer to raising livestock as ranching. A farm usually implies some sort of plant crop. The reason I mention this is to get a better idea of weather conditions to better understand the methods you're used to.

I haven't seen many ranchers who feed their livestock corn, unless it's horses. Growing up, I think the most feeds I've seen in use were grains. Either planted oats or bagged. I think they serve up a richer diet at the holding pens, but I believe that was mostly for the fattening effect. Dilemma solved. We only have to tell them that the lack of methane in the atmosphere will make up for it. How do you suppose they'll take that one?

Why do we struggle to maintain that good standing? It doesn't seem like we ever cared as much about appearance before. Is our vanity worth more than our principles? I don't think so. It seems that alot of the people feel that we hurt the world more than help it, instead of the other way around. I always feel sorrow when someone says to me that the American dream doesn't apply anymore because of growing global unity. I, personally, don't want to be unified with the rest of the world. I want America to stand on it's own like it always has. But I don't think these younger generations see it that way. I think there is a certain feeling spreading around the world that makes it politically incorrect to want to stand alone and at the forefront when it comes to greatness. As a matter of fact, I would go as far as saying that greatness alone is being looked at in a different light. I don't know if I could put any detailed description of why I think those last two statements, but it is still a feeling one gets when looking from the past to the present and imagining the future. I was raised in a very small town where most of us grew up with the sense of what it used to be like and what it meant to those who grew up in generations before us (because we pretty much still lived the same way). We can still see how the depression affected those who lived through it, in the way they bought, sold, or saved, even if the chance that they use what they saved was minimal. We might can shrug it off to "different times call for different measures", but it is still sad to see good eras go by the weigh side. I don't know...maybe this is more perception than factual, but the feeling is there all the same.

Yeah I should have thought about that as a force applied constantly, as opposed to a strengthening force. One more dunce moment on my part.So there are two forces that are constants that we know of so far that have no implications of entropy or conservation? The constant and gravity? Those two are about the trickiest subjects to read about that I've come across so far.

Things change, I reckon. And I can see a certain amount of apathy seeping through todays culture. Almost like "we're all going to die anyway, so who gives a s**t." But not from everybody, and not even a majority I wouldn't think. I can also understand how you feel about "the good ol' days". Though I'm probably a generation younger than you, I was raised a little old school and have seen some of that coming from a small Texas town. And although there was some greatness to that day in age, there was also some harsh times and unrest that, I think, resulted in some of the current thinking (and weirdness) of todays generation. Alot of us think of it as a societal decline, but I guess every generation thinks that about younger ones don't they? Just think of what your grandfather thought about your generation. Unless he was a pretty cool ol' boy, I would guess he felt pretty much the same way, or close to it.

How can a cosmological constant be constant? Any energy density or force should still follow conservation principles, shouldn't it? So how can a constant remain stable or even accelerate without some sort of input? Also shouldn't this conservation law be apllied to gravity? Does gravity weaken over time by energy conservation? It seems to me that force should also be accounted for when figuring the overall density of the universe, and not just baryonic matter. It seems that energy or force can be detrimental to a systems density or pressure. Why is it not included in such a measurement? Just some short questions for now.

I just didn't know what you're comments were pertaining to.

Okay...

mark, What explosion are we talking about here? The explosion of themselves? If so, then where did they go? If such can occur, those particles would have to be accounted for somehow. Maybe. It would help if there were some observable experiment to support the idea. As far as I've read so far the characteristics are as I stated above, though I can agree that there is still alot of unknowns. Also, we know that gravity creates lensing. Wouldn't a repelant form of gravity also offer a form of gravitational lensing?