US reform of healthcare. Good or bad?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Captain Kremmen, Dec 24, 2009.

  1. navigator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    Can you show me where the current bill repeals the states laws that prevent us from buying insurance across state lines?

    Im curious which rep solution your talking about? I like the one by Sen Jim Demint, but it was ignored. You should check into it, it address the concerns you stated above. It would also let people who are self-employed form groups to leverage better prices for themselves while giving them the same tax benefits on healthcare premiums offered by employers.

    They may not be talking about it now but they sure are greasing the slippery slope.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    The principle of denying medical care to those who cannot pay is not worth doubling the cost of medical care for everyone else.
    In numbers of people world wide. (Lots of people in China, and the US doesn't even cover its own population).
    No first world country except the US deliberately fails to provide basic medical care for any significant fraction of its population.
    I'm sure there is some good reason. Most really flagrant and obvious stupidities have some kind of reasoning behind them.
    You'd have more time, money, and blood if you weren't paying so much for the delusion of US medical care.
    If you add the stillbirths to the baby deaths, and compare the totals between countries, you get the same ranking - the US still looks bad.
    So?
    Nothing stops insurance companies from obtaining licenses to do business in any State.

    The anti-trust exemptions currently enjoyed by insurance companies remain, apparently - but then this entire effort has been a rollover for corporate power.
    Tax breaks won't control costs. The self-employed are never going to be able to form groups large enough to "leverage" a major insurance company.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2010
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    No it is not, I even quoted an example how the law in Britain requires "signs of life" while your citation merely says 24 months.

    So we have no such thing as a miscarriage?

    That called a miscarriage.

    I want you to show me the USA law on what defines a still birth.

    No the British law does not state what it is called before 24 months, the law says its a stillbirth if its born AFTER 24 months AND no sign of life. I would assume a miscarriage, or a spontaneous abortion, etc, so not it would not be listed as a still birth. What your telling me is that say a fetus at only say 10 weeks was birthed and if some how a sign of life could be detected from that peanut size body it would be called a infant mortality in the USA?


    What that have to do with the price of cheese? Certainly it helps my argument that those countries are the sickest in the world.

    So? Why do we send cheap AIDS drugs to africa and charge so much for americans here?

    No, no I don't, but I believe we should wait and see what the results are.

    Of course they do, its a highly compromised piece of shit, but that has nothing to do public option being well liked.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. navigator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    Of course, if there is no sign of life whats the point? It is a stillbirth, misscarriage, whatever you want to call it, that does not count as an infant mortality in any country. The point your missing is some countries add stipulations to the signs of life that allow them to label it a stillbirth even though there were signs of life.


    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/itop97.pdf


    Ten weeks maybe stretching it, but twenty three weeks is not.

    Good question, and another reason I don't want government run healthcare. The reason I pointed out how much the US spends in other countries is because people don't understand where much of the money spent on healthcare in the US goes.

    If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    It doesn't matter. The criticism of the US health care system remains, regardless - simply add together the miscarriage, stillbirth, and child mortality counts together, so the definitions don't matter, and the US comes in below other first world countries.

    Inferior health care systems, especially very expensive ones, have consequences - the damage radiates into the society in general, in many ways.
    No one is counting the medical aid money spent in foreign countries (which isn't that much, anyway) as US health care expenses. What are you trying to assert there?
     
  9. navigator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    The US does cover its own population. Its called medicaid and medicare.

    See above

    Delusion? LOL Whats delusional is people will pay $500 month to drive a new car, but complain about paying $500 health insurance premium.

    That makes absolutely no sense.


    Are you telling me there would be no added expense to do business in more than one state? Why not just let the individual shop nationwide for insurance?

    Why not?
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Those programs do not provide ordinary first world medical care to the general population.
    So? One delusion does not cancel another.

    Everyone I work with on one of my jobs has medical insurance. Every one of them is also living with chronic injury or medical malfunction that will eventually impose large medical costs, that they cannot afford to have cared for on occurrence or since. The years of loss of quality of life, economic productivity, and community benefit, will be followed by large medical resources devoted to fixing what would have been much smaller problems at the time. That is stupid.

    In France, Germany, Spain, England, Denmark, Canada, etc, they would be fixed up already, at much less expense and much lower lifetime costs to them and the country as a whole. Multiply by a million, adn realize why the US system is so much more expensive while yet failing to provide standard first world medical care.
    But it's true. Check it out. You were trying to excuse the US child mortality stats by claiming problems of definition. That doesn't work - the US also has problems with high rates of miscarriage, stillbirth, etc, to match its high child mortality rates.
    Because that eliminates the ability of the states to regulate insurance companies, and expands the cartel powers of the very largest insurance companies. Take a look at the usury suffered by credit card holders, and the problems with predatory lending involved, in that situation.
    Too small and vulnerable a market fraction.
     
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Quite, possibly but you have yet to show proof of it. The citation you provide is too vague its does not state the law in each country on the issue.

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/itop97.pdf

    Did you read this, its states 20 months, not much of a difference, that equavilent to Belgium which has low mortality then the USA.

    We been able to keep track of medicare and medicaid spend quite will. All these other country manage universal healthcare pretty well, so why are you insinuating the USA government is incompetent in comparison? Also people are aware of African aid, its one of the few things Bush was credited for.

    and it could be a gosling, a swan even.
     
  12. krazedkat IQ of "Highly Gifted"-"Genius" Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    262
    I resent you saying that. Socialism is not facism, get facts straight. Socialism helps so many countries, the happiest countries on earth are socialist :shrug: take a hint America.
     
  13. Captain Kremmen All aboard, me Hearties! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,738


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Proposed new American clinic design:
     
  14. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Of course socialism isn't fascism; socialists aren't nearly that intelligent.
     
  15. navigator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    You don't seem to understand how these programs work or maybe you just don't have a clear grasp of what these programs are designed for. Their primary responsibility is providing healthcare for the uninsured.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Not following you here.


    You mean there are no wait lines, cuts in funding or rationed care in these countries? What if your name is not drawn in the lottery?


    Its really not that difficult to understand, I find it perplexing you cannot grasp the simple concept that different countries add to the signs of life criteria to define a stillbirth and how that puts the US at a disadvantage.

    Spin it however you want, but a baby born in the US and UK at 23 weeks, that shows signs of life for 1 second, are not recorded the same on the infant mortality lists. Also your trying to compare apples to oranges when you start introducing new terms like miscarriage to the debate. In the US, miscarriage and stillbirth mean the same thing. In the UK a child could be born at 23 weeks and show signs of life before passing, not a miscarriage. However, it is listed as a stillbirth because the length of pregnancy was not 24 weeks.

    Also, you keep implying the infant mortality rates, in the US, compared to other countries is so bad. You must not be aware that if the US had 4 less infant mortalities, per 1000 births last year, the US would have ranked at the top of the list.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

    How so?


    Your underestimating peoples desire to save money.
     
  16. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    LOL, come on navigator you are smarter than that. First, buying insurance across state lines is a red herring. There is nothing stopping insurance companies from registering with states and selling insurance in those states if they choose to do so.

    You are curious about Republican solutions, look to what they have done not what some of them are saying now. Republicans gave us the largest expansion of social programs since Medicare was created (Medicare Prescription Drug Program) all in a effort to keep unearned profits flowing to the insurance industry and drug companies.

    And your final comment, the old greasy slope arguement...kinda reminds me of the old Domino Theory. The arguement used to keep the US involved in Vietnam but with even less grounds for support. There is no reason for the US to nationalized heatlhcare and every reason not to. The government does not have the money necessary much less the political will to nationalize healthcare. Nationalizing healthcare would make as much sense as shooting yourself in the head. That is why no one but the Republicans are even talking about it and the Republicans are only talking about in order to scare people along with other misrepresentations (e.g. death panels).
     
  17. navigator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    You keep moving the goal posts. You said..

    Thats exactly what I gave you...

    http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/misc/itop97.pdf

    Earlier, you wanted a list of countries that have added to the definition for stillbirth, "no sign of life". I provided you one that clearly lists the additions to the signs of life criteria that change the definition so that if a infant is breifly shows signs of life, but has not met the 24 weeks of pregnancy, it is listed as a stillbirth. And then you make the claim it was "useless" because it said nothing about "signs of life". Good grief!

    Their is a huge difference in the development of the fetus from 20-24 weeks.

    Belgium had 2 less infant deaths, per 1000 births, than the US.

    https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html



    What planet are you living on?

    60 Billion in medicare fraud.



    Link?
     
  18. navigator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    The cost of doing business in more than one state does prevent some ins. companies. There would be no extra cost if an individual could pick from health insurance nationwide, regardless of what state the provider is in.

    As large as that social program was, why must the dems shove one 10x bigger down our throat?

    I could only really grasp the last part of what you said about death panels and scare tactics. I am curious what you would call this?


    As for the slippery slope...

     
  19. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    My complaint was not the US law, it was what you showed of Europe that was vague.

    No its does not say what its listed as before X weeks, its says after 24 weeks + no sign of life is a stillbirth.

    Yes that right.

    Hey we know about it don't we? 95% of medicare goes to patients, only ~80% of private insurance goes to patients.

    You can't read the WHO web site?
     
  20. navigator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    How is it vague?

    In the UK and parts of the US, even though the baby "shows signs of life", it is still recorded as a still birth because the definition of stillbirth has the added caveat of 20 or 24 weeks of pregnancy.

    The list does not show "signs of life" as a criteria for defining stillbirth, because it is the worlwide standard. Instead it shows what unique additions to the definition of stillbirth each country in the EU uses. The three criteria added to the signs of life are: length of the fetus, weight of the fetus and length of gestation. Due to these additions, it is possible that an infant is born and show signs of life and still be ultimately recorded as a still birth. These will present an innaccurate representation of the facts when compared to other countries that use a different definition of stillbirth. It may be small differences on one hand, but on the other hand we're talking about 4 births in one thousand and the US would be ranked #1.



    What do you think the infant is listed as, if it "shows signs of life", and then passes, at 23 weeks gestation?


    Their kool-aid has too much sugar coated socialism and the flavor is largley driven by ideology.

    Are you familiar with the "fairness doctrine" used by the WHO to rate health care?
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    No, it says nothing about what its called before achieving those marks, its only stillbirth if it achieving those marks and has no signs of life.

    Again its only stillbirth AFTER achieving those times, lengths, weights AND showing no signs of life, it says nothing about what it is before hitting those marks.

    Not sure, you tell me.

    what a nice metaphor the says nothing.

    So if you don't like the facts attack the messenger?
     
  22. navigator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    327
    Well if thats your best attempt at being objective this is a waste of time, good day sir.
     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    Care to explain what those extra costs would be? Of course not. What you mean is that the industry understands it is better for an industry with a 20% profit margin not to compete with each other. In a competitive market businesses would be competing as long as it were profitable to do so.

    This would lead to another expensive financial industry collapse if implemented, by getting rid of state regulators. Additionally, it would do nothing to control costs or give consumers lower prices. If the industry does not want to compete in a state today, they are not going to offer competitive rates in that state tomorrow with this proposal. Where is the incentive to competition? The short answer, under the current structure, there is none.

    What the Dems are proposing is no where near 10 times the size, actually the Democrat plan is less than twice the size of the Republican Medicare Prescription Drug giveaway. And the Democrat plan is fully paid for and will reduce the projected deficit by about 100 billion dollars instead of adding nearly 600 billion to the deficit as did the Republican Medicare Prescription Drug bill.

    I think you well understand the fear tactics being used by the industry and Repbulicans to stop healthcare reform.
     

Share This Page