Summed up, it questions what good reforming healthcare will do when the people who require healthcare take little to no interest in their own wellbeing.
The price tag for obesity has soared to $147 billion a year, new government studies show, and smoking costs about $193 billion in medical expenses and lost productivity.
If we were to be a healthier society in general, saving that nearly $350 BILLION dollars each year, maybe the rest of the healthcare system would sort itself out.
Why should the cost of these completely preventable causes be born by the taxpayer?
Never mind the work-placed related diseases like Black Lung, asbestos damage to your lungs, and the plain ol' 'have something big and heavy fall on your head' type of accident. If only those evil Republicans could get OSHA eliminated, just think of the savings!
On a somewhat serious note, at least some personal responsibility is needed. I recognized that I do control my diet, and I also recognize that I control it poorly.
Social security was originally established to -quite literally- take care of the little old widows. The average life expentancy of men was less than the age to collect benefits (like 61 vs 65, iirc) and it was expected that women would collect for only a few years (their expectancy being like 67 vs 65 to collect benefits). The government shouldn't be responsible for taking care of people.
Trouble is, Obesity can be caused by poverty, as the cheaper foods tend to be the crappier convenience type foods. Thus the lardarses are unable to afford their healthcare premiums on account of not being wealthy enough.
I still fail to see how any country claiming to be civilised only allows private health care.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Trouble is, Obesity can be caused by poverty, as the cheaper foods tend to be the crappier convenience type foods. Thus the lardarses are unable to afford their healthcare premiums on account of not being wealthy enough.
I still fail to see how any country claiming to be civilised only allows private health care.
As soon as you find one MDG, tell me. Its not the USA.
I fail to see how civilization requires free services. Where do you draw the line? At what point on Maslow's heirarchy of needs do you separate what the government should provide versus what the individual should obtain for themselves?
Food, Clothing, Shelter, Breathing, Sex - these are all considered the most basic needs, the physiological, and the government isn't responsible for providing all of these.
Healthcare isn't considered a need at this level. It's a 'safety' need - along with financial security and insurance. Why should the government be providing Safety needs when they don't even provide all the basic physiological needs?
That said, you're right, there are some correleations between poverty and obesity. But that's hardly all the people, and even in those cases, obesity can be self-controlled.
Perhaps the government would be better able to provide universal healthcare if the cost of doing so were not so exorbitant, and those costs would certainly be lessened if people would take responsibility for their own wellbeing.
Perhaps the government would be better able to provide universal healthcare if the cost of doing so were not so exorbitant, and those costs would certainly be lessened if people would take responsibility for their own wellbeing.
Why would the costs be lessened? Everyone dies, the helathier live longer and have more use of heath severices over time + the still have the same end of life costs as the other scum of the earth. The majority of costs incurred are in the last year of life, whether you are "healthy" or not. Eventually no one is healthy. Eventually everyone dies.
Frazzled is right. 80% of a persons medical costs occur in the last year of their life. Just trying to prolong the inevitable has a much more draining affect on medical costs and life savings.
As people live longer, they eventually incur severe debilitating afflictions our ancestors couldn't imagine and the cost to treat, nevermind cure, those afflictions can sky rocket. This is the true source of health care cost overload. We need more wars to cull the population. Not these one offs in the Middle east, I'm talking about massive cullings on the order of WW2. We lament 5,000 dead in Iraq, but 20 million dead in Russia, 8 million dead in Germany. Now we are talking real numbers.
Or we can live in peace, grow old and slowly die of some faceless virus or disease which rots our bodies and minds from the inside out.
As Def Leppard once said "It's better to burn out than fade away." So true in these times.
But the health services used by healthy people cost less, even if they're used for a longer period of time.
I know more about obesity than smoking, as a result of my wife's studies and conversations, but the obese tend to have significantly more long-term and chronic problems than non-obese. It's not all about the last year of life - there are many costs associated with obesity that are incurred year after year, only because people won't take responsibility to get themselves in shape.
Redbeard wrote: Healthcare isn't considered a need at this level. It's a 'safety' need - along with financial security and insurance. Why should the government be providing Safety needs when they don't even provide all the basic physiological needs?
That said, you're right, there are some correleations between poverty and obesity. But that's hardly all the people, and even in those cases, obesity can be self-controlled.
Perhaps the government would be better able to provide universal healthcare if the cost of doing so were not so exorbitant, and those costs would certainly be lessened if people would take responsibility for their own wellbeing.
Obesity is hard to be self controlled when your eating habits are established when you're still a nipper. Give a kid large portions from birth, and it's metabolism and psychology adapts to this. Thus, I believe it is grossly inaccurate to label obesity 100% self inflicted.
And healthcare very much is a need. As I said in other threads, how many people are not working, and thus not contributing, due to relatively easily cured health worries. Things like a bad back, hip problems etc. And how many others work less due to having to care for someone needlessly invalided? An American NHS, whilst costly, does have a lot of financial benefits to your country (seeing as that is the one and only thing people are complaining about. Love and peace to your fellow man, unless it isn't free right?). Think of the frivolous lawsuits issued due to injury, and the massive payouts companies have to make. Offer a Social Health Scheme, and the awards could lessen, as the Healthcare costs simply aren't part of the equation. This reduces prices elsewhere, as companies no longer need write part of their profits each year to lawsuits brought by idiots.
But hey, those opposed keep looking for ways to satisfy your own selfish needs! (not saying this is you skip. Is a general thing)
And the healthy living fanatics have the same problem. The advantage is the serious smokers die more quickly. Study after study have shown that smokers cost less in toto than non-smokers. So puff away!
Additionally, this whole pregnancy thing should be monitoroed. If only people didn't get pregnant then they wouldn't die in childbirth. Come to think of it they would create few babies to suck up valuable health care dollars later on.
And as for smoking related diseases. Despite the inane prostestations of the Tobacco Companies, Passive Smoking can, and indeed does, kill people. Thousands of them. Every year. Tens of thousands (though I think thats globally). Thus, again, someone who grew up in a house where both Parent smoked, is liable to develop respiratory problems and diseases. What about them? Their condition was inflicted upon them, yet they have to pay?
P.S. Can someone let me know the average Health Insurance Premium and Excess costs for a Yank?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Obesity is hard to be self controlled...
Lots of things are hard. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be addressed.
And healthcare very much is a need.
I didn't say healthcare wasn't a need. I said that, according to Maslow, Healthcare is not as important a need as a number of other things, including shelter, food and sex - and the government is not in the business of providing these.
If the government provides for everyone's needs, what point is there in working? I guess England is a good example of what happens when you give out the dole and watch people who are happy to take it year after year and do nothing to benefit the society that is providing for them.
Think of the frivolous lawsuits issued due to injury, and the massive payouts companies have to make. Offer a Social Health Scheme, and the awards could lessen, as the Healthcare costs simply aren't part of the equation. This reduces prices elsewhere, as companies no longer need write part of their profits each year to lawsuits brought by idiots.
Ha ha haha ha...
Seriously, you think Americans are gun nuts? Guns are protected in the 2nd amendment - the right to file frivolous lawsuits is protected in the 1st amendment. It's considered as important as freedom of the press and freedom of speech in these parts...
Orkeosaurus wrote:If you're going to invalidate self-control on account of tendencies you learned as a child, you're never going to have it.
Not trying to invalidate it, as it is a matter of education first and foremost. When someone accepts they are a big fatty fat fat because they scoff too many pies, and don't do any exercise, then they are now armed to do something about it.
Of course, denial is a massive problem. In Britain, we recently had a Fat Camp open, and there was a rather wonderful documentary about it, and a US equivalent. The parents in Britain differed from those in the States on one major fact. They admitted their kid was a big rolypoly buffoon because they fed them crap as and when they demanded it. The parents in the States however, blamed it on Genetics, Environent, God, The Devil, anyone but themselves. What stuck in my mind was the following quote....
[quote=Some Mother on aforementioned Documentary. To be read in an idiotic Southern Drawl Little Jim Bob (probably not his real name like, but it fits) is Fat, yeah. But it must be Genetic. I'm big, his father is big, our parents were big
Anyone else see the flaw? Coming from an already Obese family says less about genetics, and far far more about the eating habits the family has.
You tell a kid that there is nothing that can be done about their size and weight, and they will believe it. They are kids. Kids are notoriously dumb when it comes to believing their parents. Thus, the education they get from Dieticians and Doctors has a far far harder job of wheelding it's way into their brains, let alone taking root.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And on the subject of Social Security in the UK (not England. Country is bigger than just England).
The trouble here is one of perspective. Social Security, like all similar plans, was intended to see families through hard times. Then came the Labour Government before Thatcher, and that evil old Witch. Under Thatcher, we had 3,000,000 unemploted people. Long term unemployed. And not just in ones and twos in towns, but whole Mining Towns and Villages thrown on the scrapheap of life by that mad old bint. This forced families and multiple generations to live on Benefits, as there was [i]no work to be had. And therein lies the problem we now have (and it is a problem). A couple of Generations have now grown up, left school, and gone straight on benefits as it is all they have ever known. Give it 50 years, and we'll assess it again. These things take time to be rectified, and thus far no Government has been overly fussed about this depressing status quo.
Obesity is hard to define. I laugh at the BMI calculations for obesity which are based on sex, height and weight. According to those calculations Walter Payton in his prime was considered obese. In fact almost every running back in the NFL right now is considered obese. I'm not talking about a hulking lineman, but the running backs.
I don't know that denial and education are mutually exclussive, though.
Both the parents and the children in the documentary probably have access to whatever information on obesity they desire, they just have no motivation to do so, for whatever reason. (Self-pity? Fear of responsibility? Who knows.)
Denial makes education harder. When I worked for my old Secondary School, two kids genuinely had ADHD. One kid had supportive parents who told him he just had to try extra hard to behave. The other was told being naughty wasn't his fault. Care to wager which was a nasty little gak?
But denial is a choice. It's not a problem of access to education, it's a problem of ignoring education in favor of what they would prefer the situation to be like.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
The trouble here is one of perspective... And therein lies the problem we now have (and it is a problem). A couple of Generations have now grown up, left school, and gone straight on benefits as it is all they have ever known. Give it 50 years, and we'll assess it again. These things take time to be rectified...
Well, when you get that figured out, come back and complain about the US healthcare system, right. Give the US 50 years, and they'll probably come up with something too - they'll have to, all the boomers are leaving the workforce, and there's no way the 20-somethings can pay for the current system.
I mean, you're sitting here saying that the US is uncivilized for not having government healthcare, but look at what happens when the government does everything for people - you get the problem in the UK, where, as you said, entire generations have grown up and gone on the dole because there's no reason to do anything else. If people can get all their needs covered by the government, what incentive do they have to seek employment? Perhaps having healthcare dependent on employment is a good thing - it gives people a reason to actually get a job.
Tax all of the things that do serious harm to people health ridiculously (say 100$ for cigarettes? ) then use the proceeds to fund the social welfare/healthcare system.
Funny thing about all of this (and Mad Doc mentioned this before) is that people of extremely low income have very few options to be healthy. The best they can do usually is quite smoking, then run around the block until they can save up for a bicycle. If you have ever lived on less than ten thousand dollars a year, you should understand how hard it actually is to remain healthy food, exercise, and mental health wise.
If I added up what it would cost to actually eat healthy, get a membership to a proper gym, a bike for every member in the family, and on top of this find the time in your schedule to keep the whole family in line. This matriarchal job usually falls to the mother in the family, while everyone else complains a bit too much. I see this in more than half of the families I know, but most of these are not your classic family, they follow a very American style of living.
For example:
Single (possibly with a good boyfriend if they are lucky) Mother with a full time job and two kids, hopefully no more than that.
Grandmother with a child of her own, dealing with her Mothers health issues, on top of other issues in the family.
At what point does it become practical in a realistic sense to DEMAND that people remain healthy as possible.
Furthermore Frazzled hit a very important point, which is the healthier you are the longer you live, and the more of a potential burden you become on the health care system. This may be a bit lofty quite honestly, but their is a lot of truth to it.
Again, I state that anything that can potentially cost the government health care programs more money that is put into it by the people, should be taxed to subsidize the system.
Heh, I would love a world where action like this was taken to get to the core of the issues. Peopl sure as heck have the right to eat whatever, and smoke whatever, and so on and so forth, but they need to pay massive amounts of cash to do so. In other words good luck destroying your health if you are poor, more power to the stoned, unhealthy, and mentally distraught rich folks .
Not for a kid. It is the Parents decision to be ignorant in the face of facts (and I don't truly believe anyone can be ignorant unless they have been offered the facts). And think about it. Kid is say, 7 years old by the time they receive education about healthy eating and the impact of a poor diet. This might last for a couple of hours a week, for 3 months. Thats not a lot of time compared to the time the Parents have been saying it's not the kids fault.
@ Redbeard: I don't think the kind of people who plan to live their whole lives sucking money off of other people are usually the kind of people who are concerned about health problems. (Or at least health problems that don't immediately cause enough discomfort to get off of the couch.)
::EDIT:: @MDG: This thread is moving way too fast. Anyways, we're not talking about children paying for healthcare, are we? Once the child is an adult, it's their responsibility to start weighing evidence. (Now, if the health education they recieve at their school is anything like mine, they'll learn a bunch of crap about why sex and drugs are evil, and a small amount of wishy-washy crap about eating lettuce and playing sports. That's neither here nor there, though.)
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: The trouble here is one of perspective... And therein lies the problem we now have (and it is a problem). A couple of Generations have now grown up, left school, and gone straight on benefits as it is all they have ever known. Give it 50 years, and we'll assess it again. These things take time to be rectified...
Well, when you get that figured out, come back and complain about the US healthcare system, right. Give the US 50 years, and they'll probably come up with something too - they'll have to, all the boomers are leaving the workforce, and there's no way the 20-somethings can pay for the current system.
I mean, you're sitting here saying that the US is uncivilized for not having government healthcare, but look at what happens when the government does everything for people - you get the problem in the UK, where, as you said, entire generations have grown up and gone on the dole because there's no reason to do anything else. If people can get all their needs covered by the government, what incentive do they have to seek employment? Perhaps having healthcare dependent on employment is a good thing - it gives people a reason to actually get a job.
I'll say right now that I'm not sure whether your just being a good debating partner, or if you really and genuinely believe Social Healthcare is a bad idea. So please take into account when I undoubtably start gibbering!
I'm saying that to deny people even basic health care for want of a few extra dollar/quid/drachma/zloty/euros/shekkles etc is despicable. Utterly despicable. This sort of opinion is usually espoused by someone from a relatively closeted life where a lack of money has never been an issue.
Now the British system is indeed flawed. You shouldn't really be able to make a living off your benefits, but you should be able to exist on them. We've discussed this in the Pub numerous times, and one recurring idea is to have literal Social Security stamp books. You get issued it, and it covers your basic needs (food, drink, housing and warmth). You want ciggies? You want booze? You want a PS3? Then get off your lazy arse and work.
However, just because a system is flawed is absolutely no reason to scrap it. Any system will have it's flaws. And people will find then exploit these flaws. Thats just part of life sadly. But to deny those playing by the rules help just because some scum choose to cheat?
Also, I didn't say the current Generation were going on the dole purely out of choice. Thatchers royal buggering of everywhere but the South East (well, more or less) affected the next couple of Generations. Imagine the Mining Towns I mentioned. The mine was life. It provided jobs and all the benefits that go with it. Every generation since the mine opened would work down in the dark. Then that was taken away, with naff all provision made. So the generation immediately afterwards is stuffed. And arguably the next couple. They can't afford to move away (house prices fluctuate, and you won't get much for a 2 up 2 down in a dead town) and there are still precious few jobs around. Trapped by circumstance, and you have to work extremely hard, and getting very lucky to escape that.
Wrexasaur wrote:Tax all of the things that do serious harm to people health ridiculously (say 100$ for cigarettes? ) then use the proceeds to fund the social welfare/healthcare system.
Like
*Pregnancy
*Competitive sports
*Living longer (cancer rates rise over time)
*Living longer (diabetes and heart problems over time)
*Working in a hospital (being around sick people)
*Working in a school (being around sick people)
*Parenthood (being around sick people)
*Being a cop, fireman, ambulance driver
Its ironic I'm for personal responsibility. But at the end fo the day evrybody dies. Statistically no one dies peacefully in their sleep never having been in the hospital.
Although I will not deny that there is a huge amount of younger people on SSI, I cannot believe that most of them enjoy living on such small amounts of money. The fact is that it is very hard to get off of SSI when you have been introduced to it from a young age. I think that public housing with work programs are incredibly useful, yet horribly underused. Most people on SSI are given their check then thrown into some drug-ridden hotel where they quite literally have to fight to keep their housing safe for themselves.
In the Bay Area, there is little to no direct help for people through government programs. You get your money (if you are lucky enough to actually qualify through the bureaucracy) then they pretty much forget about you and hope you stay around as long as possible so they can receive funding. It is a vicious cycle that very few people have the skills to get out of, especially when you factor the amount of drug addicts (these guys are the problems, your check is not for crack cocaine, it is for food MMK!) and people with legitimate mental health issues.
I would like to know how many of you actually know a single person on SSI as a friend, and if you have actually talked to them about what they have gone through just to receive any ACTUAL help beyond a check that can barely take care of one person.
SSI was cut a few times recently, and it will be cut again by a few dollars at the end of the year I believe. Most people with housing receive around 800 dollars per month, out of which they would be lucky to be spending less than 500 dollars a month on rent. Have you ever tried to survive on 300 dollars a month and actually accomplish something besides eating? Your options are so limited it is beyond belief. You go to community college, (luckily you can receive exemption for the fees if you are low-income) and end up spending at least 50-100 dollars a month on transportation, not counting the costs of a car if you have one.
(This applies specifically to California, but there is no real hard-line for the amount of money people can receive, besides a maximum amount. The cost of living for the Bay Area specifically is next to unlivable for most low-income people. I have lived in many types of housing and all of them have attacked my wallet with a vengeance. I have usually spent more than half of any income I had at the time on rent. I know very few people with cars, and being poor without a car limits your long distance travel to the public transportation; this means that you will actually be spending what it would cost to own a car if you travel a lot. Spending even 10$ on travel is very common around here for public transportation workers, some of which do get that covered by their jobs.)
This problem applies to anyone who is extreme-low income, and the options to further yourself without huge amounts of cash are slim to none. If you work a full time job with children, and no family to help support you, your better off just getting your kid into college because at that point you have basically NO realistic option to further yourself at all. Maybe you get lucky and become a manager, and your child will not have to take out loans that will keep them hungry five years after they get out of college.
There are taxes on people that make "the wrong" decisions, yet there is very little about how the money gets spent. Shouldn't that money represent their portion of the "extra bad-health" taxes? Or are we taxing these things for our health? Do I really care that cigarettes are heavily taxed? No, but that money should be spent on the people that paid it, or you can just take it and continue to talk badly about people that pay to make poor decisions about their health.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html wrote: Still, it’s easy to see why the bad-habits tax was so tempting: Taxing tobacco, junk foods and alcohol could raise $600 billion over 10 years.
This money to be exact, the money that will fund the problems addressed in this thread. I actually find this quite amusing .
Well, here's a question. If the government increases taxes by an exhorbitant amount on fast foods to make them $20 a pop(literally) for the sole purpose of preventing people from eating them, isn't that the government more or less controlling your actions and taking away the right to decide what it is you want to eat?
Also, by making fast food so expensive you see a decrease in the number of people eating it, which means people are not BUYING it. This means that those companies will lose profits and close down shop and those who had those jobs no longer have them.
Seeing as though fast food and retail are the usual starting jobs for teenagers, you have a loss in potential experience to be gained by working at fast food chains.
If the decisions impact the entire population and we actually care about keeping corporations like Mcdonalds and Monsanto in business, we need to take action against it in some regard.
Saying that the companies themselves are not a part of this is just ludicrous. The amount of money spent on advertising fast food, and specifically sodas to kids in general is beyond my comprehension. Amounts of money so vast that I could make a swimming pool for my entire neighborhood, including ten hot tubs and a few diving boards, THEN fill all the recesses with cash. On top of this I could also make an entire wardrobe out of nothing but 100 dollar bills, then have a at least a few money napkins to liberally wipe my nose on.
After a few of these commercials, Mountain dew will look like a walk in the park, with absolutely no health strings attached.
Mmmm, just watch one more and I bet you will get thirsty... even though neither of these commercials really have anything to do with the product... at all.
Oh, and don't forget the flipside of the arguement.
My Car Insurance will be expensive when I get my own Cab. I'm on the road for longer than most drivers, will rack up more miles, thus the chances of me having an accident increase. This I accept.
However, do you really think that £200 a month in premiums will cover the costs should I have a bad accident that I caused, and the Insurance company have to cough up to repair boths cars and all occupants? I think not. That would be why your insurance premiums are also expensive.
Same with Healthcare. You're already paying for the big fatty fat fats, raging alcoholics, cancer riddled smokers etc, just in a slightly abstract way.
At least with Social Healthcare, there are no arseholes at the top of the ladder taking a chunk of your hard earned money when you have the good sense to avoid disease and injury as much as possible. Seriously, if you don't think you are paying for them already, then you are a fool!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Same with Healthcare. You're already paying for the big fatty fat fats, raging alcoholics, cancer riddled smokers etc, just in a slightly abstract way.
The fact is that all of those things are taxed, and that money should be representing the folks that paid it. You are in essence paying for no one but yourself, as long as the taxes are appropriately raised and monitored to reflect the needs that they represent. If you are making millions of dollars every week (I know people that do...) I could honestly care less about you losing a bit of that ludicrous amount of money to taxes; insanity at it's finest, the whole I earned it argument cannot be applied to such crazy amounts of cash that are so liberally tossed around like hot-cakes.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Same with Healthcare. You're already paying for the big fatty fat fats, raging alcoholics, cancer riddled smokers etc, just in a slightly abstract way.
At least with Social Healthcare, there are no arseholes at the top of the ladder taking a chunk of your hard earned money when you have the good sense to avoid disease and injury as much as possible. Seriously, if you don't think you are paying for them already, then you are a fool!
No, there's just government bureaucracy, inefficiency and corruption (nepotism and the like) instead. Have you ever heard of a well-run government agency?
Redbeard wrote:No, there's just government bureaucracy, inefficiency and corruption (nepotism and the like) instead. Have you ever heard of a well-run government agency?
So... you trust the government so little that you would not let them handle health-care, but you still live in the country?
I see a much larger issue if this is the final debate point to this issue, because it speaks more about the peoples inability to take forward action in these issues, and lays the entire burden on the state. If it is THAT bad, why are we just putting up with it? Why is it that in the U.S. we manage to get up in arms about Clinton getting a little something on the side then LYING about it, but when the next president comes along and informally lies through their administration about "facts" that bring us into a war that has been going on for years now we just sit back and wait for the next president to take care of it all?
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Same with Healthcare. You're already paying for the big fatty fat fats, raging alcoholics, cancer riddled smokers etc, just in a slightly abstract way.
The fact is that all of those things are taxed, and that money should be representing the folks that paid it. You are in essence paying for no one but yourself, as long as the taxes are appropriately raised and monitored to reflect the needs that they represent. If you are making millions of dollars every week (I know people that do...) I could honestly care less about you losing a bit of that ludicrous amount of money to taxes; insanity at it's finest, the whole I earned it argument cannot be applied to such crazy amounts of cash that are so liberally tossed around like hot-cakes.
Thats the way it's done in the UK. Ciggies are heavily taxed, and every penny of that particular tax is spunked into the NHS to keep it rattling along (and rattle it does!). Drink is also quite substantially taxed (sadly to the point where many pubs are closing Boo!)
US can do the same. $20 Burgers is a stupid price of course, but add 20 cents in additional tax on every McDonalds Crappy Meal, and KER-CHING! Lots of spare cash for the Health Service.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:US can do the same. $20 Burgers is a stupid price of course, but add 20 cents in additional tax on every McDonalds Crappy Meal, and KER-CHING! Lots of spare cash for the Health Service.
Of course 20$ is ludicrous, but sometime you have to ask for a lot to even receive a little. I posted an article earlier addressing this issue specifically, and I believe that there is MORE than enough opportunities to take care of any flaws the new system would encounter. I feel like a lot of U.S. citizens are willing to sit back and wait because A.) they want a perfect system or nothing at all... and B.) they have privatized health care that they have had not yet had serious problems with.
I have a bit of an issue with the B.) standpoint because most people on privatized health care HAVE encountered serious issues, but they just sit back and think of it as something standard. If you are lower-middle class and these issues of overpriced health care reach you, there is practically nothing you can do but hope to be able to afford it. With the prices that are charge out here, I cannot imagine a more effective way to make health-care an issue of the classes. The equipment is there, but screw ten thousand people if we can just profit off of the handful of rich ones.
Classism is a serious issue in the U.S. and we see it in everything from health-care to education... and now a rhyme... action needs to be taken .
Redbeard wrote:No, there's just government bureaucracy, inefficiency and corruption (nepotism and the like) instead. Have you ever heard of a well-run government agency?
So... you trust the government so little that you would not let them handle health-care, but you still live in the country?
I see a much larger issue if this is the final debate point to this issue, because it speaks more about the peoples inability to take forward action in these issues, and lays the entire burden on the state. If it is THAT bad, why are we just putting up with it? Why is it that in the U.S. we manage to get up in arms about Clinton getting a little something on the side then LYING about it, but when the next president comes along and informally lies through their administration about "facts" that bring us into a war that has been going on for years now we just sit back and wait for the next president to take care of it all?
Wrexy thats what the government was based on: checks and balances; and a federal system; and the Bill of Rights because the Founders did not trust the government. In many parts of the US the phrase "I'm from the government and I'm here to help, " would be treated with derision.
As the old saying goes, "when seconds count the police are just minutes away."
I don't distrust the government. I trust them to do a bad job.
The IRS is a great example of this. It's so convoluted and confusing to pay your taxes that there's an entire industry dedicated to doing it for people. There are rules on top of rules on top of other rules about how you can avoid some taxes but have to pay others.
Why do I live here? Because, unfortunately, there is no where else that I could live and enjoy the freedoms that I currently enjoy, without encountering the same types of corruption and inefficiencies. The benefits outweigh the negatives.
But that doesn't mean I want the government running anymore than it already does. I believe that the healthcare crisis in this country is not due to 'who pays' but rather, 'who gets paid'. Follow the money and you'll see who is benefiting from the system we have. If they tackled this whole mess from the point-of-view of reducing the costs (it shouldn't cost me any more to see a doctor for 15 minutes than it costs me to take my car to the shop), we'd actually be getting somewhere. Problem is, there are too many vested interests in positions of power to ever accomplish that, so instead, we sit here debating who should be paying.
Redbeard wrote:The IRS is a great example of this. It's so convoluted and confusing to pay your taxes that there's an entire industry dedicated to doing it for people. There are rules on top of rules on top of other rules about how you can avoid some taxes but have to pay others.
Agreed, but I think that is a sign to start and make changes, not limit the changes that could benefit us positively and on the whole as a united nation of people.
Complaining about how bad it is only makes me want to find answers to these problems (which they obviously are) so the system can run as smoothly as it once did. Perhaps this was more than half a century ago, but blaming the circumstances more on the people than the corporations and government is just not fair. We need to get up and change the way things work, but we most definitely do not need more rifts in our culture that just work to further the inequalities that are an inherent part of life in the U.S.
Individually I can move an entire mountain, in a group of a dozen we can move the entire mountain range, as a whole people we can move the very planet itself, and we know this more than ever in our current climate of culture and science.
You know I was reading an article in forbes about healthcare.
You know the whole "america spends more than other nations and has higher infant mortality rates than other nations" argument. Apparantly america spends the same when it comes to basics(bandages, stethoscopes, etc) but spends more on research and developement. It also says that the loss in time due to being ill isn't taken in account when the US is compared. An american is treated faster than a canadian patient for example so the canadian loses more time and productivity while waiting for care.
As for the baby thing, most nations don't count infants who are born and die within a certain amount of time as an infant, they're called a stillborn for logistics. In america a stillborn is a baby that is dead when it comes out, if it dies a minute after birth it counts as an infant death.
They also said that when you compare europe and america and put them into weight classes, the american infants are much better off (according to the study done in may 2009).
Basically, the studies said that america is in fact, better than europe, we just pay more. At least that's what forbes says.
halonachos wrote:Well, here's a question. If the government increases taxes by an exhorbitant amount on fast foods to make them $20 a pop(literally) for the sole purpose of preventing people from eating them, isn't that the government more or less controlling your actions and taking away the right to decide what it is you want to eat?
Yes, and?
halonachos wrote:
Also, by making fast food so expensive you see a decrease in the number of people eating it, which means people are not BUYING it. This means that those companies will lose profits and close down shop and those who had those jobs no longer have them.
So? Creative destruction will ensure they find employment elsewhere. Huzzah! I can channel Ayn Rand too!
halonachos wrote:
Seeing as though fast food and retail are the usual starting jobs for teenagers, you have a loss in potential experience to be gained by working at fast food chains.
And there is no reason that quality of care would go down. You could still opt for Private Care.
What it would mean is that more people gain access to that level of care, thus the lowest paid workers (who cannot afford a Health Plan) spend less time off work when something goes biologically wrong.
Something that the U.S. also practices regularly is the whole treatment versus prevention tactics. There is a fair amount of "health-propaganda" in the U.S. but it really fails to help very much, and a more direct (and expensive) approach will undoubtedly work much better.
Schools are still serving quite wretched food out here if I am not mistaken. There are a few places that have actually changed their menus to be healthier, but the lack of funding in general takes it's toll on things like food quite drastically.
There is a middle school near here that has a very large garden which was envisioned by Alice Waters of http://www.chezpanisse.com/ and still stands relatively strong today. The interest in it as a phenomenon was quite short lived, and the last time I went by it, the whole place looked very inefficient, and more of a game than an actual community based activity.
I find these kind of lackluster community boosters all over the Bay area, and they really do not help very much at all. It is quite funny to me that nearly everyone in the U.S. would instinctively go out and pillage if the nation ever fell. No self sufficiency is actually taught to kids, especially the extremely important things like being able to feed yourself healthy, and even grow your own food; God forbid anyone actually takes the idea of growing your own veggies seriously .
Just look at all of this food! It is really quite easy to do, you just need to maintain interest in it. I have done an awful lot of volunteer work, and the only reason the community gardens seem to do badly is because no one cares enough. I helped a guy that had an HUGE orchard that he has maintained by himself for decades. He bought the lot behind his house, then changed the house into two units to cover the cost (renting one out basically); in the lot he found out that it was an old dump that had been used in the far past. He had to take out literally tons of garbage before he could start his orchard/garden. Today he has at least on of nearly every type of fruit tree (including multiple kinds of avocados, which can be very tricky to grow for fruit) as well as multiple types of berries and even a small veggie area. He waters the entire site with a well on the property, which he pumps into a home-made reservoir tank and releases through gravity on a timer.
What he did took and investment of time and dedication, but with a bit of elbow-grease the whole place has been providing a surplus of fruit for neighbors and close friends. If there were one of these on every city block, we would have more than enough food to have potlucks every season, and veggies for people the year throughout. In a group of even 100 people, a garden can be maintained with little to no effort on a collective part. One hour a week, how does that sound for 10-20$ of veggies a week? On top of this you can grow pesticide free, with natural fertilizer and maintaining the crops naturally is quite easy. Deers are about the worst thing you can have around a crop, bugs are not usually a huge issue, and they are protein to boot .
Well dogma, how many people do you see without a job and last time I checked the unemployment rate is increasing instead of decreasing. So unfortunately this wouldn't be creative destruction at all, just destruction.
Also, last time I checked you may not pay for internship directly, but the way to get an internship costs money. Whether it be for radio, medicine, or something else, you need prior education in that field.
So my surgery internship is going to cost me at least forty or so thousand dollars.
Sure I could take out a loan, but I'm not making too much income during internship so the loans may cause me to lose credit if I am unable to pay them.
MDG, although all of the good doctors that give the quality care could all go private so the quality of the "free" care could still go down. So the biologicaly deficient worker may need to wait longer than usual for care and waste more time than usual.
halonachos wrote:Well dogma, how many people do you see without a job and last time I checked the unemployment rate is increasing instead of decreasing. So unfortunately this wouldn't be creative destruction at all, just destruction.
So, you're saying that capitalism is not an analogue process?
halonachos wrote:
Also, last time I checked you may not pay for internship directly, but the way to get an internship costs money. Whether it be for radio, medicine, or something else, you need prior education in that field.
So my surgery internship is going to cost me at least forty or so thousand dollars.
I paid 12k to do an internship at State, and 19k to do an internship at CBS. Almost all internships require a financial committment of good faith. If you didn't pay, you got lucky.
Oh no, I'm not saying capitalism isn't a process or anything like that, I'm just saying that they will seek other means of income, and let's just say that I would foresee a lot of investment in brass and lead.
So dogma, you are saying that you have to pay in some way to get an internship?
Waste more time than usual? When they cannot afford Health Insurance at all?
This is what I'm driving at. How many people of working age citizens in the US are currently incapable of contributing to the economy because of a health problem they cannot afford to get sorted out?
Also, is there a firm figure (as in hasn't changed for a few days) as to the annual hike in normal taxes per person this plan is going to cost? Because as I linked to earlier, private health plans apparently average out to $7,800 a year per person (and I did flag the uncertain veracity and accuracy of the site I linked to )
halonachos wrote:Oh no, I'm not saying capitalism isn't a process or anything like that, I'm just saying that they will seek other means of income, and let's just say that I would foresee a lot of investment in brass and lead.
So you're attempting to trivialize pain.
halonachos wrote:
So dogma, you are saying that you have to pay in some way to get an internship?
To get a useful internship? Yes. At least in any field not ordinarily treated as technical.
To trivialize pain, no. Its just reality. IF you have no income and have someone to support or just feel like you really need some sort of income and there are no legal means to getting it then you may well head down the road of vice. As for the investments, well in the world of vice you need a weapon to keep you safe and to help secure income while legally one needs a weapon if they want to defend against those in the world of vice.
Its a common phenomena for a crime rate to go up in a city if the unemployment rate is getting larger, don't know why, but it does.
halonachos wrote:Oh no, I'm not saying capitalism isn't a process or anything like that, I'm just saying that they will seek other means of income, and let's just say that I would foresee a lot of investment in brass and lead.
So you're attempting to trivialize pain.
halonachos wrote:
So dogma, you are saying that you have to pay in some way to get an internship?
To get a useful internship? Yes. At least in any field not ordinarily treated as technical.
Never heard of anyone PAYING for an internship in finance or law, probably break a law there. Maybe I am mistaking what you're intending to say.
halonachos wrote:To trivialize pain, no. Its just reality.
That statement is necessarily based on the consideration of pain as trivial.
halonachos wrote:
IF you have no income and have someone to support or just feel like you really need some sort of income and there are no legal means to getting it then you may well head down the road of vice. As for the investments, well in the world of vice you need a weapon to keep you safe and to help secure income while legally one needs a weapon if they want to defend against those in the world of vice.
So you're attempting to justify vice, and thereby render the concept impotent?
halonachos wrote:
Its a common phenomena for a crime rate to go up in a city if the unemployment rate is getting larger, don't know why, but it does.
Because people need to survive. Legality has no impact on that. The law is only as sacrosanct as it is useful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Never heard of anyone PAYING for an internship in finance or law, probably break a law there. Maybe I am mistaking what you're intending to say.
No, you're not. Most internships now cost as much as low-end college tuition. For example, I paid 19k to get coffee for people at CBS. You can not imagine the level of bitterness I fostered.
Frazzled wrote:
Never heard of anyone PAYING for an internship in finance or law, probably break a law there. Maybe I am mistaking what you're intending to say.
It may not be directly paying for the internship. For example, in my wife's program, she has to have so many clinical hours. They get those by interning. While they're interning, they're on the books at the college as in some sort of class. You have to pay tuition to cover those credits. So, she's not paying the place that she's working at, (they're not paying her either), but she's paying the school while she's doing her unpaid labour.
Frazzled wrote: Never heard of anyone PAYING for an internship in finance or law, probably break a law there. Maybe I am mistaking what you're intending to say.
It may not be directly paying for the internship. For example, in my wife's program, she has to have so many clinical hours. They get those by interning. While they're interning, they're on the books at the college as in some sort of class. You have to pay tuition to cover those credits. So, she's not paying the place that she's working at, (they're not paying her either), but she's paying the school while she's doing her unpaid labour.
In my industry (software) interns get paid.
Yeah clinical hours can get pretty brutal about halfway through. And considering Techs in hospitals and nursing homes get paid at least ten an hour, you might be pulling 20 to 30 hours without pay each week along with going to classes. I like to count it as you paying the facility in the wages you'd normally be earning as a tech or something similar.
But honestly this line of discussion in this thread has strayed off topic pretty far.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Trouble is, Obesity can be caused by poverty, as the cheaper foods tend to be the crappier convenience type foods. Thus the lardarses are unable to afford their healthcare premiums on account of not being wealthy enough.
I never bought into this, it's a bit like the notion that one mustn't mock chavs because they're poor or working class. Obesity is caused by a lack of education about how to eat and a lack of legislation on what can be sold to eat.
All to quickly the cooking skills of our parents generation have been lost, the education system needs to put these skills back into society.
Redbeard wrote:
It may not be directly paying for the internship. For example, in my wife's program, she has to have so many clinical hours. They get those by interning. While they're interning, they're on the books at the college as in some sort of class. You have to pay tuition to cover those credits. So, she's not paying the place that she's working at, (they're not paying her either), but she's paying the school while she's doing her unpaid labour.
That's the most common form of extortion. Though there are other, more egregious offenders; mostly in politics. Look up internships at the US State Department.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Trouble is, Obesity can be caused by poverty, as the cheaper foods tend to be the crappier convenience type foods. Thus the lardarses are unable to afford their healthcare premiums on account of not being wealthy enough.
I never bought into this, it's a bit like the notion that one mustn't mock chavs because they're poor or working class. Obesity is caused by a lack of education about how to eat and a lack of legislation on what can be sold to eat.
All to quickly the cooking skills of our parents generation have been lost, the education system needs to put these skills back into society.
I agree.
I don't know what it is, the prevalence of fast food, the lack of education or the lack of availability of healthy foods the problem is that people are fat. If we focus on preventing illnesses such as these there will be fewer expenditures of healthcare resources in the future. It doesn't cost anything to tell a man to stop eating so damn much, but it definitely costs money to give him heart bypass surgery... three times. We need to let these people die like we do other people. We don't give drug addicts new organs, we don't give the elderly expensive/painful surgeries (most of the time) and we sure as hell don't give diabetics new kidneys.
Our main problem at this point is we have a growing generation of degenerate idiots who are uneducated in areas that are important to living a financially successful life. They don't know how to open checking accounts, how to get a decent line of credit, put on a condom, or eat food that won't kill you. They are having kids at 16 and 17 and pretending the world owes them something. I know it's probably trendy to blame the younger generations but we have a serious problem now. These people are teaching the next oncoming generation, they are teaching them to be complete feth ups.
George Spiggott wrote:
All to quickly the cooking skills of our parents generation have been lost, the education system needs to put these skills back into society.
The inverse is true, at least in America. Our parents (speaking as a 20-something) learned how to maximize the calorie count while minimizing the expense; hence fried chicken and poultine. However, once expense is no longer a factor quantity will tend to increase. Poultine is a brilliant food, but not when its eaten every day in large quantities.
To what degree and how do most U.S. schools teach kids to live? Home economics is about the closest I know of. It is a bit ridiculous to expect todays parent to be able to put together healthy meals each and every night as well as teaching their kids to not only listen over the mass of homework, and/or video games about simple things like knowing how to cook.
Out of all of the college students I know, I would say around 1:10 actually cook for themselves on a regular basis. Even though rice and beans is the same price if not cheaper and healthier than ramen noodles, most younger people just do not take the time to even think about their health.
These things some consider everyday tasks most consider a skill. Staying organized is also a huge problem for most young people, for whatever reason.
Fat people usually know that eating too much and not exercising enough is making them fat, they just don't want to make the short-term sacrifice for their long-term goals (or they don't desire to change at all). It's not a matter of education, so much as it is a matter of their motivation.
I'd say the biggest exception to the rule is people who get misinformed on the best way to lose weight after they've already put on a lot. Even that, though, is generally a matter of wishful thinking getting in the way of a real plan. (I can be thin in eight weeks with this new pill! That's easy!)
@ Dogma: My parents are pre baby-boomers. I wasn't familiar with poutine (chips and cheese with gravy, UK readers) so I Googled it, I put on a stone looking at the picture.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Fat people usually know that eating too much and not exercising enough is making them fat, they just don't want to make the short-term sacrifice for their long-term goals (or they don't desire to change at all). It's not a matter of education, so much as it is a matter of their motivation.
Yes, the over-simplification burns my eyes so deeply .
The fact that some people actually have an addiction to food (most obese people do on some level) seems to make absolutely no difference for all the chubby-haters here. I would not expect you to have any sympathy for someone addicted to drugs either, they must look like tiny little bugs to you, just waiting to be squished, eh?
WEAKMINDED FOOLS, YOU SHALL NO THE WRATH OF THE GYM SOON ENOUGH!!!
You should also beware, because when the food runs out, who do you think they are going to eat? .
What defines an "addiction to food"? Continuing to eat too much?
So they eat too much because they eat too much. That doesn't mean anything.
Drugs manipulate the chemicals in your brain in a way that food doesn't, so they're not comparable. And I don't hate fat people, I'm not even trying to have them taxed.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Drugs manipulate the chemicals in your brain in a way that food doesn't...
I'm glad to see that you've researched this subject so well. With truly obese people, like those that can't get out of bed, there is often a feeder/fed relationship between people, the psychology is very complex.
Orkeo, you are either misinformed or you have not met anyone with another type of addiction. There are groups for nearly every type of addiction, and I hardly think you would be willing to go off crusading about how these people are just liars, and you have some grandiose point to prove.
Talk to informed doctors and nutritionist about this for a while before you decide to label people as liars to themselves (which oddly enough is what constitutes an addiction, and you lack of support in this respect makes me hope you have no addicts that are close to you).
Wrexasaur wrote:
Yes, the over-simplification burns my eyes so deeply .
The fact that some people actually have an addiction to food (most obese people do on some level) seems to make absolutely no difference for all the chubby-haters here. I would not expect you to have any sympathy for someone addicted to drugs either, they must look like tiny little bugs to you, just waiting to be squished, eh?
WEAKMINDED FOOLS, YOU SHALL NO THE WRATH OF THE GYM SOON ENOUGH!!!
You should also beware, because when the food runs out, who do you think they are going to eat? .
Wait, what?
By the very act of defending fat people you are assuming that being fat is bad. If that's the case, then it only makes good sense to encourage fat people to lose weight. Encouragement which generally manifests itself as the discouragement of obesity.
Also, once you start considering food an addiction the entire notion of addiction loses its moral force.
By the very act of defending fat people you are assuming that being fat is bad. If that's the case, then it only makes good sense to encourage fat people to lose weight. Encouragement which generally manifests itself as the discouragement of obesity.
Also, once you start considering food an addiction the entire notion of addiction loses its moral force.
How does defending someone who is overweight constitute them being bad? Encouraging someone to be healthy is a good thing BTW, I have nothing against that. Someone who is obese on the other hand, is going to need a lot more help than you just recommending they lay off of the whip cream.
I need you to explain the second part in detail, because I obviously lack your perspective on this situation.
Wrexasaur wrote:
How does defending someone who is overweight constitute them being bad? Encouraging someone to be healthy is a good thing BTW, I have nothing against that. Someone who is obese on the other hand, is going to need a lot more help than you just recommending they lay off of the whip cream.
You've perceived an attack, and countered with a defense. You didn't need to counter at all, you could have simply dismissed. The addition of a counter indicates that you perceive some merit in the attack itself.
Wrexasaur wrote:
I need you to explain the second part in detail, because I obviously lack your perspective on this situation.
If food can be an addiction, then breathing can also be an addiction. So can life itself. Once you start looking at addiction in such open terms you have no recourse but to consider any repetitive behavior as addictive. That's all well and good so long as you do not consider addiction to be of an intrinsically negative character. But seeing as addiction only exists conceptually in order to represent the negative; doing so seems counter-productive.
Dogma wrote:You've perceived an attack, and countered with a defense. You didn't need to counter at all, you could have simply dismissed. The addition of a counter indicates that you perceive some merit in the attack itself.
That is perceptive psychology at best Dogma, my defense can be as I see fit, for reasons I see necessary.
Dogma wrote:If food can be an addiction, then breathing can also be an addiction. So can life itself. Once you start looking at addiction in such open terms you have no recourse but to consider any repetitive behavior as addictive. That's all well and good so long as you do not consider addiction to be of an intrinsically negative character. But seeing as addiction only exists conceptually in order to represent the negative; doing so seems counter-productive.
The core of addiction lies in the person themselves, but it is not some easily achieved goal, like making toast. The fact that someone chooses to over-indulge in food has absolutely no merit to the fact that they have an addictive personality. I have seen friends go through nearly every addiction until they settled in one that was seen as acceptable, to some degree this would include food. The fact that they chose food/sex over drugs had absolutely no bearing on how much damage they did to themselves, it had more to do with how long it took for the damage to be noticeable and at a point where action could be taken.
Saying that only drug addicts have addictions, is basically saying that only drugs can harm you, and it is an old technique used by anti-drug crusaders. They take the human element out of it (which is the actual core of the issue) then they present the material that is used to cause the harm as the real problem. If the drugs were the problem, then we would have no problems because people would just understand that they are doing something wrong. On top of this, drug-treatment centers would be like vacation spots where you shake a long night of drinking off over Pina colada's in a hot-tub... welcome to hollywood I guess .
Wrexasaur wrote:
That is perceptive psychology at best Dogma, my defense can be as I see fit, for reasons I see necessary.
You'd think so, but that really isn't the case. People act according to a relatively small set of discreet reasons, though they might not understand that fact in precedence. If you didn't feel the accusation of negativity was legitimate, you would not have mounted a defense. You would have dismissed, defused., or ignored. Remember, even something which might be taken with frivolity will only inspire a response if it is serious in some sense.
Wrexasaur wrote:
... the fact that they have an addictive personality.
Addictive personalities are a myth. Unless you want to claim that we all have addictive personalities due to our collective fondness for oxygen.
Wrexasaur wrote:
I have seen friends go through nearly every addiction until they settled in one that was seen as acceptable, to some degree this would include food. The fact that they chose food/sex over drugs had absolutely no bearing on how much damage they did to themselves, it had more to do with how long it took for the damage to be noticeable and at a point where action could be taken.
By living I am damaging myself, does that mean that I am addicted to life?
Wrexasaur wrote:
Saying that only drug addicts have addictions, is basically saying that only drugs can harm you, and it is an old technique used by anti-drug crusaders.
That's not what I'm saying, but you can feel free to believe otherwise.
Wrexasaur wrote:
They take the human element out of it (which is the actual core of the issue) then they present the material that is used to cause the harm as the real problem. If the drugs were the problem, then we would have no problems because people would just understand that they are doing something wrong. On top of this, drug-treatment centers would be like vacation spots where you shake a long night of drinking off over Pina colada's in a hot-tub... welcome to hollywood I guess .
Dogma wrote:Addictive personalities are a myth. Unless you want to claim that we all have addictive personalities due to our collective fondness for oxygen.
Explain to me (in detail) how this can even possibly be true. The rest of your comments are just quippy and rhetorical.
I will say that there are different types, and possibly even levels of addiction, but I cannot say why someone could be more inclined to be a certain type of addict, and I most definitely cannot say why they would vary so profusely in their levels of addiction.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Drugs manipulate the chemicals in your brain in a way that food doesn't...
I'm glad to see that you've researched this subject so well. With truly obese people, like those that can't get out of bed, there is often a feeder/fed relationship between people, the psychology is very complex.
Cake doesn't pass through the blood-brain barrier. There's a widely recognized difference between physiological and psychological dependence.
I'm not talking about people who can't sit up either, I'm talking about the vast majority of the population; and the role education plays in it (which it seems has been ignored completely, in favor trying to make my post relevent to this new tangent).
Wrexasaur wrote:Okay then, it is a disorder with consequences that CAN rival a drug addiction, as any other "pseudo?..." addiction can.
Orkeo, you are either misinformed or you have not met anyone with another type of addiction. There are groups for nearly every type of addiction, and I hardly think you would be willing to go off crusading about how these people are just liars, and you have some grandiose point to prove.
Talk to informed doctors and nutritionist about this for a while before you decide to label people as liars to themselves (which oddly enough is what constitutes an addiction, and you lack of support in this respect makes me hope you have no addicts that are close to you).
Did you read either of your links?
The first one is on binge eating which is not a condition that most obese people have.
The second one outlines the difference between physiological and psychological dependencies that I've already mentioned. If you follow the link on eating disorders, it ends up with 2% of the population having trouble with binge eating. Around 25% of Americans are obese, and more are overweight. Binge eating is not the cause of much of it.
George Spiggott wrote:@ Wrexasaur: Asthma is the body's defence mechanisms over reacting. I don't really think you do it.
So, it was sarcasm not a personal attack? I am quite sure you are saying that I am over-reacting but I am not completely sure. Perhaps I have approached this discussion in the wrong way, but I did post quite a bit of information (the one with the garden picture) about how I have tried to participate in creating healthier communities. It is not about being a monk, just remaining aware of your health, and taking action to further it in beneficial ways.
Orkeo wrote:I'm not talking about people who can't sit up either, I'm talking about the vast majority of the population; and the role education plays in it (which it seems has been ignored completely, in favor trying to make my post relevent to this new tangent).
I think I misunderstood your posts then, because it sounded like you were generalizing quite a bit. I do think that most people with health-issues can find direct means to counter them, but it often isn't that simple. Little things do add up on the other hand, such as salads for lunch, and walking up the stairs vs. taking the elevator. Being lazy may or may not have anything to do with health problems, especially when most jobs are done from a chair now.
Orkeo wrote:The second one outlines the difference between physiological and psychological dependencies that I've already mentioned. If you follow the link on eating disorders, it ends up with 2% of the population having trouble with binge eating. Around 25% of Americans are obese, and more are overweight. Binge eating is not the cause of much of it.
No but binge eating is definitely a factor, as all of the other eating disorders and various addictions are. I do agree to some point that being addicted to cigarettes per se, can be a hell of a longer battle than eating healthy, especially with support. The fact remains that cigarettes are a product (as is alcohol, and various drugs) that can be taken away from an addict, so in some way it could be perceived as more manageable on the material level. This whole conversation got extremely complicated very fast, and I for one lost track of the original intent a few post back .
Orkeosaurus wrote:Cake doesn't pass through the blood-brain barrier. There's a widely recognized difference between physiological and psychological dependence.
This is much more specific, earlier it was 'drugs', is it now 'drugs that cause physiological dependence', that's not helpful.
Orkeosaurus wrote:I'm not talking about people who can't sit up either, I'm talking about the vast majority of the population; and the role education plays in it (which it seems has been ignored completely, in favor trying to make my post relevent to this new tangent).
I mentioned education in my first post, perhaps we are in agreement.
This conversation is being muddied with addiction terminology (and worse) where it isn't needed, some people have a medical problem eating less, others just need to be told that 'chips and cheese with gravy' isn't the best use of your ingredients and that $$ (or ££) isn't the major factor in eating healthily.
@Wrex: Yes, sarcasm regarding your use of the phrase 'pseudo addiction', I hope what I've written above clarifies my position.
I would like to see a healthier U.S. and I think it is possible though various means, none of which would be completely required.
Education is by far the most effective way to inform people of options, but most of this education needs to be hand's on and in schools where the message will really mean something. The main point is to show people that it is realistic to live healthy, and they can do so with moderate effort. You do not need to be an Olympian to be healthy in other words.
Since the drugs best known for their addictive qualities usually cause physical dependence, I thought it was a safe bet.
Besides, if a significant of what he's comparing isn't comparable than they're probably not comparable as a whole. Wrex didn't specify 'drugs that don't cause physiological dependence' either.
My stance on education is that most people who are overweight know enough about weight gain to lose weight, so I think we're actually in disagreement there. I think education on the subject is usually poor, and that probably contributes to it a little (especially with fad dieting and the like), but I think it's mostly a factor of people not wanting to be thin enough to sacrifice for it. I don't think most people eating a super-triple-cheeseburger meal at Wendy's don't realize it's unhealthy.
I think that most people may know that it is unhealthy, but on that same point I doubt they would complain much about paying the taxes on it for their "extra" part of the health-care system. Same goes for many smokers, and other vices, even motorcyclists would pay a tax (don't they do that on insurance already?) to enjoy themselves.
Education has a lot to do with knowledge of prevention, than it does statement of fact. Sure this burger is unhealthy, but so what? What else tastes this good, and is this easy to get anytime I want? Is there a way to eat this in a healthier way, or am I just evil for enjoying good, fatty food?
The thing is though, education isn't just passive.
I typed "how to cook a healthy burger" in my Google toolbar, and I've got threegoodresults.
(Also, I don't know where the morality thing of eating too much comes in; there's not a person alive who never enjoys themself in the present to prolong their life. Or at least there shouldn't be. It's more a matter of where to draw the line.)
Orkeo wrote:(Also, I don't know where the morality thing of eating too much comes in; there's not a person alive who never enjoys themself in the present to prolong their life. Or at least there shouldn't be. It's more a matter of where to draw the line.)
I think this is the main issue, and one that needs to be addressed through the media. In the U.K. I am pretty sure they are a lot more progressive in this sense, especially in a world media ridden by "perfect" people that manage to do a great job of making people feel apathetic about their existences.
I will say that there are different types, and possibly even levels of addiction, but I cannot say why someone could be more inclined to be a certain type of addict, and I most definitely cannot say why they would vary so profusely in their levels of addiction.
The link you're posted does a pretty good job without my help. But, for the sake of clarity, it works like this:
There are varying types of addiction, not a single, overriding addictive personality.
Wrexasaur wrote:
No but binge eating is definitely a factor, as all of the other eating disorders and various addictions are.
No, they aren't. They are factors which relate the creation of a statistic, but have no relevance to one another such that treating binge eating can be considered significant to the larger problem of obesity. Unless you are coming at the matter from a perspective of obese=eating disorder, in which case you are simply begging the question.
This thread has gone to strange places, and it seems people are arguing all around the actual issues and not really talking about how each really relates to the original point. I'd just like to throw three statements out there and see if anyone can disagree with any part of any of them.
The idea that people with healthy lifestyles will suffer an additional cost for the health choices of others is valid to some extent, and may be part of a reasonable argument for adding excises to certain products and activities. However, it makes no sense as a criticism of the introduction of a more socialised system of healthcare into the US. Right now healthy employers bare the risk for the health of their fellow workers, just as is the case in the 'socialised' health systems around the world. Further, right now the inefficiencies and outright failings of the US system result in you paying around 50% more than other developed countries for healthcare, which is many times the cost born by people with healthy lifestyles for the lifestyles of the unhealthy.
There is already a huge personal motive for ensuring one's own health - not dying. To the extent that this motive doesn't encourage people to live healthy lives, then no profit motive will. If the idea of heart failure and death at the age of 43 doesn't stop someone going to Macca's, I don't think a 50c surcharge on a Big Mac is going to make much difference.
People overeat for a lot of reasons. There are learned behaviours, economic factors, social and cultural factors, behavioural disorders, some level of addiction, and some people just don't care. Within each overweight person there's some combination of the above plays a part. To be honest, though, it doesn't really matter, because one of the most important things in life is to not be judgemental. When there are so many things so badly wrong the US health system that worring about the additional cost from the unhealthy feels a lot like isolating an easily judged section of society to scapegoat.
Orkeosaurus wrote: there's not a person alive who never enjoys themself in the present to prolong their life.
Could you expand on this a bit. I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to say and don't want to misunderstand or misinterpret.
I may have been speaking in hyperbole a little. What I'm trying to say is that no one devotes all of their time and effort to trying to live as long as possible, unless they're completely nuts.
Even someone who lives an extremely healthy lifestyle takes some risks; just going out with your friends could wind up with you in a car crash, but that doesn't result in sane people never leaving their houses for fear of death.
Frazzled wrote:
Never heard of anyone PAYING for an internship in finance or law, probably break a law there. Maybe I am mistaking what you're intending to say.
It may not be directly paying for the internship. For example, in my wife's program, she has to have so many clinical hours. They get those by interning. While they're interning, they're on the books at the college as in some sort of class. You have to pay tuition to cover those credits. So, she's not paying the place that she's working at, (they're not paying her either), but she's paying the school while she's doing her unpaid labour.
In my industry (software) interns get paid.
OK that I understand. Paying college credits at the same time. Yes. We have an intern here doing that. In other areas people will have internships not related to school-again both legal and finance. the school may help youn get the internship, but there is no formal relationship, just accepted culture after.
Remember always make the interns go get coffee and breakfast tacos for everyone. Its what they are for!
Trivializing pain dogma? No, its just common reality, it sucks but so does life.
But back on topic, the problem is this: Joe is totally responsible; he eats healthy, he jogs every morning, etc, etc. Jack is responsible but not as responsible as Joe and likes to have a beer every once and awhile.
One morning Jack is driving and is drunk because that's how he felt like waking up, he's driving along and suddenly hears a thump. Joe is now on the ground dead because Jack felt like driving on the sidewalk.
Mike is an emt and is proud that he helps people for a living. While loading a stretcher into his ambulance, Jack decides to give Mike a chiropractic adjustment with his car going 90 mph, Mike is dead.
You can be as healthy as you want or as good as you want, but as long as there's one prick alive your chances of death and harm increase.
halonachos wrote:Trivializing pain dogma? No, its just common reality, it sucks but so does life.
Do you know what it means to trivialize something? It doesn't seem that way, because every time I have pointed out that you seem to do so with respect to pain, you have denied it and then done it anyway.
It isn't necessarily bad to trivialize pain. There is nothing wrong with saying "Yes, I trivialize pain". However, there is something very wrong with denying that action while performing it in the same breath.
halonachos wrote:
But back on topic, the problem is this: Joe is totally responsible; he eats healthy, he jogs every morning, etc, etc. Jack is responsible but not as responsible as Joe and likes to have a beer every once and awhile.
One morning Jack is driving and is drunk because that's how he felt like waking up, he's driving along and suddenly hears a thump. Joe is now on the ground dead because Jack felt like driving on the sidewalk.
Mike is an emt and is proud that he helps people for a living. While loading a stretcher into his ambulance, Jack decides to give Mike a chiropractic adjustment with his car going 90 mph, Mike is dead.
You can be as healthy as you want or as good as you want, but as long as there's one prick alive your chances of death and harm increase.
What? This thread has been odd, but that is really out of left field.
Dogma, those last examples are there just to show that it doesn't matter how responsible you are for yourself if there are irresponsible people in the world. I believe the phrase "You'll be the healthiest person to get hit by a bus." falls into that category.
Look, all I'm saying that its going to happen, pain is inevitable, I don't see how I'm making it unimportant.
halonachos wrote:
Look, all I'm saying that its going to happen, pain is inevitable, I don't see how I'm making it unimportant.
Because you seem to be arguing that the inevitability of pain makes avoiding it illogical. Its like arguing that life is trivial, because death is inevitable.
halonachos wrote:
Look, all I'm saying that its going to happen, pain is inevitable, I don't see how I'm making it unimportant.
Because you seem to be arguing that the inevitability of pain makes avoiding it illogical. Its like arguing that life is trivial, because death is inevitable.
dogma wrote:Because you seem to be arguing that the inevitability of pain makes avoiding it illogical. Its like arguing that life is trivial, because death is inevitable.
That's true, but I was more interested in the examples chosen. It was interesting that in making a case about how healthy living only goes so far, all the examples given still included someone messing up in an obviously immoral way. No mention of cancer or other disease that can impact you no matter how healthy you are. It was an interesting set of choices.
Summed up, it questions what good reforming healthcare will do when the people who require healthcare take little to no interest in their own wellbeing.
The price tag for obesity has soared to $147 billion a year, new government studies show, and smoking costs about $193 billion in medical expenses and lost productivity.
If we were to be a healthier society in general, saving that nearly $350 BILLION dollars each year, maybe the rest of the healthcare system would sort itself out.
Why should the cost of these completely preventable causes be born by the taxpayer?
Decided to go back to the OP to respond...
Proposition: those people from the emergency room examples in the article are not who are important here. Those are the same sorts of people who might not avail themselves of a public option in health care - drunks, drug addicts, the criminally negligent - those people are there now and they will be there when health care reform is passed. Null result. ]
Furthermore, I don't see why this doctor is talking about these emergency room patients and then says “It just makes me very upset when I have to pay more and more taxes to support government health care programs and have to work longer and longer hours to help a lot of people that just don’t seem to care,” he wrote.
Were the people he saw in the emergency room on government health care programs? I don't get the connection...
I find the whole concept of "reforming the individual" kind of communistic, to be honest. "Work out because the Motherland demands it of you, brave sons and daughters!" Feth that, we're Americans.
Now, "encouraging wellness," that's something else. I get $150 a year from my health insurance plan in reimbursement if I join a gym. That's four months' membership paid for right there. My insurance covers nutritionists. I'd say it's being encouraged already.
But you can't go around charging Americans for their lifestyles, which is really the only enforceable-by-law proposition you end up with if you follow this line of thought, and if anyone needs the slippery slope there elucidated for them please turn in your voter registration card and stay away from the booths, please, for all our sakes.
Once everyone has health insurance, those of us who already had it are going to be paying less, not more, for everyone else in the long run. It's all about preventative care. It's cheaper and more effective. Factor in the effect of widespread preventative care on a society and see how things changes in three decades. Whole different ballgame costs-wise and health-wise for everyone. A much better ballgame.
The whole obesity debate is ridiculous. My wife has spent eight years studying the obesity myth and I don't know what is more appalling, the huge pile of bull feces that's been heaped on the public or the size of the spoons they're using to shove it down their own throats. There are no scientifically-proven causal links between weight and ANY disease, including hard disease, high blood pressure disease, and diabetes. No causal effect, no argument, sorry that's how medical science works.
Want to make America a more healthful nation? Lower the work week to 30 hours a week, 4 days a week. Grant more vacation time. Give people more time to exercise, or just go for walks, and to make home-cooked meals using fresh ingredients. Make fresher vegetables more readily accessible - have you ever had an ear of corn that was picked the same day? Maybe you'd eat more corn if you have...
Part of what makes America unhealthy is the totality of our lifestyle. Trying to pick and choose different aspects is kind of ridiculous. Maybe when we cease to be a nation of "I want more!" that'll include not always wanting more food. Perhaps when avarice is less a quintessential aspect of our nature...and perhaps when Americans aren't so bloody ignorant as a whole they'll learn more about diet and exercise and what goes into their fast food and make changes not because anyone told them to but because they're smart and they care and they do it for themselves.
Rules #1 - infinity when it comes to helping people - they have to want to help themselves first. You cannot moralize or legislate the impetus. It must be self-generated.
This is a nice theoretical conversation, but ultimately that's all it is when it comes to health care. Count on everyone being as irresponsible as they currently are ad nauseum, and structure the reform accordingly. If and when people start to make healthier choices, hey, that's even less money spent on health care. Yay bonus.
dogma wrote:Because you seem to be arguing that the inevitability of pain makes avoiding it illogical. Its like arguing that life is trivial, because death is inevitable.
That's true, but I was more interested in the examples chosen. It was interesting that in making a case about how healthy living only goes so far, all the examples given still included someone messing up in an obviously immoral way. No mention of cancer or other disease that can impact you no matter how healthy you are. It was an interesting set of choices.
I like to think outside of the box.
Life isn't trivial though, just finite. So if you're going to do good, do good. If you're going to have fun, have fun. Just know that there are idiots out there who have a chance killing you by accident. Also, you shouldn't put words in people's mouths, I didn't say anything about life being trivial, just pain being inevitable.
halonachos wrote:I like to think outside of the box.
Life isn't trivial though, just finite. So if you're going to do good, do good. If you're going to have fun, have fun. Just know that there are idiots out there who have a chance killing you by accident.
That's my point. You focus on deaths caused by others, and one's with a heavy moral contingent. It's an interesting focus, instead of picking a random cause of death such as cancer. There isn't always someone to blame, you know.
Also, you shouldn't put words in people's mouths, I didn't say anything about life being trivial, just pain being inevitable.
Heh, talking of putting words in people's mouths Dogma was talking about trivial and inevitable, not me.
There's another thread with another healthcare propsition up. The guy proposes a voluntary donation on tax forms. Of course the OP is complaining that people are boycotting the company of the CEO that thought it up.
I saw this on real time and aside from showing the protectors at the town halls was the other side: people waiting for free health care from Remote Area Medical clinic. This clinic is usually reserved for 3rd world countries but I found it amazing that the US health care system is so broke that we need aid from organizations that do their work in 3rd world countries.
I knew that Real Time with Bill Maher is often viewed as a left leaning program so I searched news reports on them and not only do they do this kind of care in LA but in places like Kentucky. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haIEXAb0Pqo
dogma wrote:You don't need to mention triviality in order to actually render something trivial.
I didn't even hint at something being trivial. I will say that you misinterpreted my remarks as it is almost impossible to send clear emotional feelings through the interwebs.
Either that or your beliefs twisted my words' meaning to what you wanted them to mean instead of what I actually meant with my words. I'll go with the former.
Something must be done yes. But what shall we do? Give taxpayers money towards it? Kill all of those without health insurance? Make it a voluntary donation? Lower corporate taxes on profits?
I think it should be a voluntary (tax-deductible) donation. The added tax would only be a finite number that can be given, while if you truly want to have a public plan you could donate more than what the increased tax would take. Also, if you opposed the plan then you don't have to donate.
I.e: Taxes would take $20 for the health plan from everyone who paid taxes(middle class and up citizens, non-illegal immigrants, those making money through legal means). While in a voluntary idea one who truly believes can donate $100 and have it deducted, or if you are rich $1,000. So one person can make up for 5 people giving tax.
What about a system where the amount of taxes you pay is fixed, but you are allowed some say in how it is allocated?
For example, say there is a list of categories (infrastructure, education, healthcare, environment, defense, and so on) on your tax return. You pay what you're required to pay, but you're allowed to rank the categories from 1 to X, and your taxes are assigned to big-picture government budgets accordingly.
Of course, this only matters if the government is required to balance its budget, but if it is, you get a far more democratized spending of money.
halonachos wrote:Oh, it won't be a tax though. It proposed to be a donation instead of a tax.
I don't know english tax laws, but in america you get a tax deduction for donating.
In Britain you can claim a tax deduction on charitable donations.
At the moment there is nothing to stop rich Americans from giving to medical charities and claiming. Some of them do, like the Gates's. But not enough to solver the basic problems.
Part of the problem in the USA is not how the system is organised and paid for, it is that it is so expensive.
Unfortunately for poor americans they usually donate to poor africans. The thing is this though, we would have a public plan that would be funded by donations. Like when audioslave made their album free, but open to donations they made more money. Simply because instead of paying $15 or $20 people would donate things ranging from .01 to $1,000.
The system is expensive because we spend a lot of the money on research.
halonachos wrote:
The system is expensive because we spend a lot of the money on research.
It isn't quite that simple. The cost of research is a factor, but the larger issue is the market incentive structure which encourages healthcare companies to bring products to the market regardless of their expense. This summarizes the issue pretty well.
Another interesting fact to consider: 49% of US healthcare costs are incurred by 5% of the population. No one discusses this because older people are much more likely to be in that 5%. Not to say that the elderly don't deserve care, but it is certainly worth examining the way in which certain laws impact the decision making in this sector (especially in the absence of a clear living will, think Terry Schiavo).
halonachos wrote:
The system is expensive because we spend a lot of the money on research.
It isn't quite that simple. The cost of research is a factor, but the larger issue is the market incentive structure which encourages healthcare companies to bring products to the market regardless of their expense. This summarizes the issue pretty well.
Another interesting fact to consider: 49% of US healthcare costs are incurred by 5% of the population. No one discusses this because older people are much more likely to be in that 5%. Not to say that the elderly don't deserve care, but it is certainly worth examining the way in which certain laws impact the decision making in this sector (especially in the absence of a clear living will, think Terry Schiavo).
I think you'll find in most developed areas unless the government actively limits spending on old farts that the ratios are similar. Unless of course you do quality of remaining life requirements.
I'd say that is broadly true, having done a quick bit of research into UK stats.
Of course, healthcare costs are naturally concentrated into the early and late years, because in developed nations humans who survive infancy, tend to live until they die of old age.
It doesn't remove the basic point that US healthcare costs double what UK, Japanese, Canadian, or French (etc.) does.
You can imagine that the USA is the only country which does medical research (you only need to spend 30 seconds on Google to see that it isn't true.) Or you can look for another cause of the costs.
You're difficulty will be finding accurate similar data from the same pool. Plenty of countries limit those payments. The US also has sub pools-public vs. private spending-and types of public spending, which is relevant to a more subtle analysis.
KK's R&D point: Indeed we’re not. However there are demonstrable studies denoting substantially higher expenditures in that area.
Of equal relevance but not discussed (further tied to the above) is IP regulations. US IP protections for drug patents are substantially better, at least than Canada. This both fosters higher R&D, but also increases relevant costs here. This is supported by both studies and personal experience. Mom was able to get drugs from Canada at substantially cheaper rates than the US, until it was blocked by the US government at the insistence of same companies. (bastardoes!)
I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science?
We have the artificial heart, use of anesthesia, and invention of MRIs.
Another reason why it costs more over here is that american hospitals have more MRI, CAT scan, and other equipment than their european counterparts and we have more access to tests using these.
halonachos wrote:I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science?
We have the artificial heart, use of anesthesia, and invention of MRIs.
Another reason why it costs more over here is that american hospitals have more MRI, CAT scan, and other equipment than their european counterparts and we have more access to tests using these.
Do we pay more, yes but we also have more.
Don't forget our absulute and incontrvertable dominance in the processed foods industries.
halonachos wrote:
Another reason why it costs more over here is that american hospitals have more MRI, CAT scan, and other equipment than their european counterparts and we have more access to tests using these.
Do we pay more, yes but we also have more.
More isn't always better. There's this thing called excess supply which has a way of massively increasing costs inside a closed system with an inelastic demand curve.
The core of this whole health debate is people that cannot afford standard health insurance. Medi-care is totally whack, regardless of what anecdotal evidence you can provide, I have met and talked to enough people to understand this simple point. It is not a cure-all, and in fact the amount of coverage state by state appears to be drastically different.
What in god's name do those fancy instruments do for the majority of people that A.) cannot afford them no way no how, and/or B.) sure they can afford them, but Bankruptcy is basically the name of the game for most people at that point.
I honestly believe in a single-payer system is the best way to counter this problem. Coming up with loose fixes and half-assed corner cutting will not get nearly far enough to close the social gap in the U.S. This rift in our culture is bound to be the biggest issue facing our nation. It is not an issue of race (though it does play a large part) rather an issue of the haves and have-nots. Fortunately the scales have tipped so extremely far that not only are the poor feeling this, but the middle classes are as well. As soon as this country realizes that we are all in the same boat, we are utterly bound to failure as long as no serious action is taken to remedy it. Three-ish centuries and reclining onto a slump already. Not more than two decades ago there was still serious activism, now that has been replaced by fear-mongering "truthers" who are able to recruit so many young people because no one is there to inform them otherwise. So at the point which this country denies any help to anyone without piles of cash, we fail, and fail hard we will. Prophecy or history in the making?
If your philosophy of medicine is based on the access to high-tech machinery for a handful of people, you must have at least one or two screws loose in the grand scheme of things.
Orkeosaurus wrote:How does an excess supply increase the cost in a closed system with an inelastic demand curve?
In a closed system excess supply can't be liquidated, if it could be the system wouldn't be closed, or the supply wouldn't be excess (I'm referring to excess supply as that component of supply which must be sold at an aggregate loss). In order to recoup losses the company who produced the excess supply will increase prices. These prices will be paid because demand in inelastic. That's the simple version, anyway.
Of course, there's no such thing as a completely closed system, and this doesn't necessarily apply to the US healthcare industry at all. However, it is an example of how the possession of more of any given thing can inhibit access to it.
"We made like 1000 of these apples... hmm, how on earth are we going to turn a profit on these?"
"Well Bob, I think I have the answer, just charge ridiculous amounts of cash to use the machine so you can make sure you turn profits within the year... yeah the stock-holders will think that is AB-FAB!"
dogma wrote:In a closed system excess supply can't be liquidated, if it could be the system wouldn't be closed, or the supply wouldn't be excess (I'm referring to excess supply as that component of supply which must be sold at an aggregate loss). In order to recoup losses the company who produced the excess supply will increase prices. These prices will be paid because demand in inelastic. That's the simple version, anyway.
Of course, there's no such thing as a completely closed system, and this doesn't necessarily apply to the US healthcare industry at all. However, it is an example of how the possession of more of any given thing can inhibit access to it.
halonachos wrote:I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science?
We have the artificial heart, use of anesthesia, and invention of MRIs.
That would be anasthetic which was used in europe for several centuries before the USA existed then, and then used by people like Joseph priestley and Humphru Davy in the UK well before use in the USA would it ?
The work on MRI heavily involved te work of several British researchers, including many from the fine labs at Nottingham.
As for general european contributions to medical science : how about penicillin, or the work of Jenner ?
............is this really the level of "debate" we've been lowered to ?
Poking holes the size of my pinky in a plan the size of plan that can be so gracefully compared to an overweight whale is petty to say the least. The evidence of the absolute and utter need for serious change is completely apparent to anyone that does fair research without the intent to disrupt the whole goddam class.
Apologies but this type of ridiculous "kindergarten politics" is what has ans continues to destroy this countries ideals. The reasons for this are long and proven, but it will continue until the "rationals" stand up en masse and say SFTU...
I do believe you mean stfu, but I want to play another ball game.
The anesthetic was used for "laughing gas" parties. Hardly a medical advancement. If your latest discovery is penicillin (which a large number are allergic to and has been mainly replaced) then you are a backwards nation.
Wow, who knew that so many U.S. citizens were so very very afraid of socialism. *Raises hand*
In the long run the only thing stopping this change from taking place is the amount of money in congress being pumped in by corporate interests. I call it downright criminal, but the law does say different.
None of these anti-health care points add up to anything besides poking people DIRECTLY in the eye, all in attempts to scare them straight.
OH NO THE CHANGE IS COMING!
Regardless of how I personally feel about it, things are going to change in some way. Furthermore it stands to reason that the lower classes in the U.S. are actually learning to think together instead of bicker over petty nonsense. If things are moving in the direction that I hope they are, nothing is going to stop this change.
The whole "death panel" really sealed the deal for me, the only problem is that most people know that it is an outright lie; at best a slowed interpretation.
Long live the home of the melting pot, by the stars we sit under I hope that this whole situation can work out for the best, and the petty low-brow politics will be squished into an undefinable paste .
"Hello my family, we welcome you into the united socialist front!"
"Hello my family, we welcome you into the united socialist front!"
That looks eastern european. If you go back to the cold war, they were, well you know, kind of like... communists... not to rain on your parade or anything.
halonachos wrote:I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science?
We have the artificial heart, use of anesthesia, and invention of MRIs.
Another reason why it costs more over here is that american hospitals have more MRI, CAT scan, and other equipment than their european counterparts and we have more access to tests using these.
2008 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Harald zur Hausen (German), Francoise Barre Sinoussi (French) and Luc Montagnier (French)
2007 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Mario R. Capecchi (Italian), Martin J Evans (UK), Oliver Smithies (UK)
2006 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Andrew Z Fire (US) and Craig C Mello (US)
2005 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Barry Marshall (Australian) and J Robin Warren (Australian)
2004 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Richard Axel (US) and Linda B Buck (US)
2003 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Paul C Lauterbur (US) and Peter Mansfield (UK)
2002 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Sydney Brenner (South African), H Robert Horvitz (US), John E Sulston (UK)
2001 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Leland H Hartwell (US), R Timothy Hunt (UK) and Paul M Nurse (UK)
2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Arvid Carlsson (Sweden), Paul Greengard (US) and Eric Kandel (Austrian)
1999 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Gunter Blobel (German).
So that's ten years of Nobel prizes, awarded to a total of 24 people. Of those 24 people you have 8 from the US, 13 from Europe and and 3 from elsewhere in the world. Your assertion that no medical advancements occur outside of the US is utterly false.
Do we pay more, yes but we also have more.
No. You have less. In terms of quality of healthcare you are ranked 37th, behind Slovenia. You are paying 50% more than anyone for the 37th best healthcare. If I walked into a car dealer and he showed me a car that cost 50% more than anything else on the market and declared this is the 37th best car around, I would not buy that car.
The OT forum has become a breeding ground for the DURR, and a bit of hurr here and there as well.
As our heads roll around, we chase them in despair... balloon brain, perhaps exasperated noggin'. The diagnosis is unclear but the remedy has already taken form .
halonachos wrote:I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science?
We have the artificial heart, use of anesthesia, and invention of MRIs.
Another reason why it costs more over here is that american hospitals have more MRI, CAT scan, and other equipment than their european counterparts and we have more access to tests using these.
Do we pay more, yes but we also have more.
Wikipedia:
Reflecting the fundamental importance and applicability of MRI in the medical field, Paul Lauterbur of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Sir Peter Mansfield of the University of Nottingham were awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their "discoveries concerning magnetic resonance imaging".
CAT scanning was invented by Thorn EMI, in England.
halonachos wrote:I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science?
We have the artificial heart, use of anesthesia, and invention of MRIs.
Another reason why it costs more over here is that american hospitals have more MRI, CAT scan, and other equipment than their european counterparts and we have more access to tests using these.
2008 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Harald zur Hausen (German), Francoise Barre Sinoussi (French) and Luc Montagnier (French)
2007 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Mario R. Capecchi (Italian), Martin J Evans (UK), Oliver Smithies (UK)
2006 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Andrew Z Fire (US) and Craig C Mello (US)
2005 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Barry Marshall (Australian) and J Robin Warren (Australian)
2004 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Richard Axel (US) and Linda B Buck (US)
2003 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Paul C Lauterbur (US) and Peter Mansfield (UK)
2002 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Sydney Brenner (South African), H Robert Horvitz (US), John E Sulston (UK)
2001 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Leland H Hartwell (US), R Timothy Hunt (UK) and Paul M Nurse (UK)
2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Arvid Carlsson (Sweden), Paul Greengard (US) and Eric Kandel (Austrian)
1999 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Gunter Blobel (German).
So that's ten years of Nobel prizes, awarded to a total of 24 people. Of those 24 people you have 8 from the US, 13 from Europe and and 3 from elsewhere in the world. Your assertion that no medical advancements occur outside of the US is utterly false.
Do we pay more, yes but we also have more.
No. You have less. In terms of quality of healthcare you are ranked 37th, behind Slovenia. You are paying 50% more than anyone for the 37th best healthcare. If I walked into a car dealer and he showed me a car that cost 50% more than anything else on the market and declared this is the 37th best car around, I would not buy that car.
That'd be impressive until we realize Al Gore and Arafat the killer of women and babies also received Nobel prizes...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:
CAT scanning was invented by Thorn EMI, in England.
So there.
How come now one ever credit's the cats with these advances? I never knew cats had such powers...
Of course due to the requirements of the new Fairness Doctrine, now a rebuttal from the canine front
Frazzled wrote:That'd be impressive until we realize Al Gore and Arafat the killer of women and babies also received Nobel prizes...
That would be damning if the Nobel committee for Medicine was the same as the committee for the peace prize. Given they're different people working with different criteria deciding an award for a completely different field of achievement, it's irrelevant.
But yeah, the Nobel Peace prize is generally an odd one.
sebster wrote:[2008 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Harald zur Hausen (German), Francoise Barre Sinoussi (French) and Luc Montagnier (French)
2007 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Mario R. Capecchi (Italian), Martin J Evans (UK), Oliver Smithies (UK)
2006 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Andrew Z Fire (US) and Craig C Mello (US)
2005 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Barry Marshall (Australian) and J Robin Warren (Australian)
2004 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Richard Axel (US) and Linda B Buck (US)
2003 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Paul C Lauterbur (US) and Peter Mansfield (UK)
2002 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Sydney Brenner (South African), H Robert Horvitz (US), John E Sulston (UK)
2001 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Leland H Hartwell (US), R Timothy Hunt (UK) and Paul M Nurse (UK)
2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Arvid Carlsson (Sweden), Paul Greengard (US) and Eric Kandel (Austrian)
1999 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Gunter Blobel (German).
But let us look not at the number of americans, but the number of prizes given to teams involving americans.
I see 4 teams that had an american's aid.(He probably did all of the work because he could afford the test tubes).
And two teams of only americans while only 1 all australian team and 1 all german team got prizes.
So 60% of those prizes were attributed to teams of americans or who had americans in them.
Also, seeing as though "europe" is not a country and the USA is, we have to be fair and look at the number of prizes to country.
UK winners-6
German winners-2
Italian winners-1
French winners-2
Austrian winners-1
Swedish winners-1
S. African winners-1
American winners-8
USA, USA, USA.
Also, snaeporue have had some time with chemical research and stuff, like mustard gas and other killy stuff.
halonachos wrote:
But let us look not at the number of americans, but the number of prizes given to teams involving americans.
I see 4 teams that had an american's aid.(He probably did all of the work because he could afford the test tubes).
And two teams of only americans while only 1 all australian team and 1 all german team got prizes.
So 60% of those prizes were attributed to teams of americans or who had americans in them.
And 70% of the prizes were awarded to teams of Europeans, or teams with Europeans in them.
halonachos wrote:
Also, seeing as though "europe" is not a country and the USA is, we have to be fair and look at the number of prizes to country.
UK winners-6
German winners-2
Italian winners-1
French winners-2
Austrian winners-1
Swedish winners-1
S. African winners-1
American winners-8
You could then assess the number of winners per capita, and...
UK ~ 1 per 10 million
Germany ~ 1 per 40 million
Italy ~ 1 per 60 million
France ~ 1 per 12 million
Austria ~ 1 per 1 per 8 million
Sweden ~ 1 per 9 million
SA ~ 1 per 50 million
America ~ 1 per 37 million
As the saying goes if a toothpick can be dressed up like a tomato... IT IS A DAMN TOMATO NOW... c'mon people, really?
Very very impressive break-down... kinda like Glenn Beck MB? Kinda? Sorta? Yeah... a bit...
Halitosis wrote:Also, seeing as though "europe" is not a country and the USA is, we have to be fair and look at the number of prizes to country.
Yep... erm... yeah, yep...
I fail to see how that is all that relevant when you take into account the size of the U.S... and realize that one on one we beat nearly every country in the E.U... can you imagine that being possible? Could this be part of the reason that they FORMED the E.U.???
Maybe... kinda. sorta... yeah, just a bit.
It is an argument like:
Well since my car is made in the U.S. it is better... in which you are usually mistaken, and clearly so, in most cases.
Dogma wrote:And 70% of the prizes were awarded to teams of Europeans, or teams with Europeans in them.
GODDAMIT DOGMA... it is a Tomato, would you just play along already?
Austria ~ 1 per 1 per 8 million... So cool they have two one pers!!!
GO AUSTRIA!!! WOOT!!!
Umm... no I am not all that hungry Austria... thank you though?
Seriously though... that looks fan-freaking-tastic... all I need now is...
Austria... you are *tears up*... seriously freaking awesome .
Doesn't matter, if you can count the E.U as one country then I demand Canada, Mexico, and the U.S then count as one country. Although that does mean we have a handicap.
halonachos wrote:Doesn't matter, if you can count the E.U as one country then I demand Canada, Mexico, and the U.S then count as one country. Although that does mean we have a handicap.
Huh? The European Union is an actual governing body. Canada, Mexico, and the US are...Canada, Mexico, and the US.
halonachos wrote:Also, seeing as though "europe" is not a country and the USA is, we have to be fair and look at the number of prizes to country.
UK winners-6
German winners-2
Italian winners-1
French winners-2
Austrian winners-1
Swedish winners-1
S. African winners-1
American winners-8
You left Australia out of your count above.
Your claim was that all medical breakthroughs were from the US. Now you’re claiming that the US has had more Nobel winners in medicine that other countries, and pretending your original point still holds. Man up, take the hit and concede your original claim. Not all medical breakthroughs are US breakthroughs.
Then try to explain how the US’ dominance in medical research results in it producing so many less Nobel prize winners per capita, as per Dogma’s work. And that’s just per capita, if you wanted to compare it to Nobel winners per dollar spent on healthcare it starts getting really ugly.
For instance, the US spends 16% of it’s GDP of $14 trillion on healthcare, or $2.2 trillion. So for the $2.2 trillion you spend on healthcare, the amount funnelled into research is producing just 8 people responsible for Nobel prize winning breakthroughs – that’s $280 billion for each breakthrough.
Meanwhile the UK, with it’s horrible, horrible socialist scheme, is spending 8% of its GDP of $2.2 trillion on healthcare, or $176 billion. With that it produced 6 Nobel prize winners, or one per $30 billion.
Dude, seriously, if you don’t want to keep getting your ass kicked, you have to stop defending US healthcare. It is a losing cause, because US healthcare is as dysfunctional as it gets in the developed world.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:You could then assess the number of winners per capita, and...
UK ~ 1 per 10 million
Germany ~ 1 per 40 million
Italy ~ 1 per 60 million
France ~ 1 per 12 million
Austria ~ 1 per 1 per 8 million
Sweden ~ 1 per 9 million
SA ~ 1 per 50 million
America ~ 1 per 37 million
There's only 8 million people in Austria. Huh. I would have thought it was like double that.
Adding some fuel to the above post; its worth mentioning that the USA attracts medical students worldwide and I'm assuming on a larger scale than any of the other countries; many graduates find themselves going back to their own countries with such knowledge.
Not that its a bad thing but just wanted to add fuel to the AMERICA feth YEA type of discussion going on
halonachos wrote:I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science?
We have the artificial heart, use of anesthesia, and invention of MRIs.
Another reason why it costs more over here is that american hospitals have more MRI, CAT scan, and other equipment than their european counterparts and we have more access to tests using these.
Do we pay more, yes but we also have more.
I have no idea who the hell you're hitting seeing as though in my quote above, I haven't said ANYTHING about ALL medical breakthroughs coming from only america.
Perhaps its just some weird translation from american english to australian english in terms of slang.
Also, that's just 10 years. Lets look at history of the nobel.
UK-31
Germany-21
France-11
Australia-6
Sweden-6
Austria-7
Italy-6
S Africa-3
And America with a whopping 93 winners.
I will start with this one right here... and I will state again that you arguing from a false perspective. If I am not mistaken at least a few of our Nobel champions have been immigrants, and in one form or another most peoples family are from abroad anyway... and I grew up in the city of Berkeley, CA surrounded by people from across the planet, most of which were not U.S. citizens by birth-right, although some were. And so on and so forth.
halonachos wrote:I have no idea who the hell you're hitting seeing as though in my quote above, I haven't said ANYTHING about ALL medical breakthroughs coming from only america.
You said this;
“I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science?”
You later went on to say;
“If your latest discovery is penicillin (which a large number are allergic to and has been mainly replaced) then you are a backwards nation.”
You questioned the last time a European country contributed anything to medicine. You then went on to assume they'd contributed nothing since penicillin. I pointed out that in the last ten years more Europeans had been recognised than Americans by the Nobel committee for their contributions to medical research.
Also, that's just 10 years. Lets look at history of the nobel.
UK-31
Germany-21
France-11
Australia-6
Sweden-6
Austria-7
Italy-6
S Africa-3
And America with a whopping 93 winners.
That's just medicine/physiology.
Yeah, if you want to make the claim that the US led the world utterly in medical research in 1925 you’d be right. If this was about a choice between the medical systems of the US and Europe in 1925, I think we’d all pick the US.
But times have moved on, and many countries have advanced their medical systems, so much so that comparisons to effectiveness from 50 years ago are absurd, in many ways comparisons to 20 years ago are dubious. That’s why I chose the last ten years.
So while you may be happy that your system is great because it used to produce more Nobel winners 50 years ago, the rest of us are going to consider how good your system is right now. The rest of us would consider the winner of the 1936 Nobel prize irrelevant in assessing the value of the US medical system today. We might even consider the historic dominance of the US an argument against the current system, that while the US used to produce so many more Nobel winners the fact that they produce so many less now indicates your system has not kept up with the rest of the world.
Hang on, so to establish your point that the cost of US healthcare is justified by the amount of research, you’re citing the total number of Nobel winners across all fields. So Al Gore winning the Peace prize increases the justification for the $2.2 trillion you spend on healthcare each year? Are you really making that claim? It is very stupid.
Are you actually thinking about what you’re posting, what you’re trying to establish before you post? Or is this just stimulus and response from you?
Next time, actually read what I write and try not to make me say things I didn't.
Oops, good catch. France should be ~ 1 in 30 million. I had originally included Australia, and then decided to pull them out of the list since they aren't European. Must have done funky editing.
halonachos wrote:I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science?
We have the artificial heart, use of anesthesia, and invention of MRIs.
Another reason why it costs more over here is that american hospitals have more MRI, CAT scan, and other equipment than their european counterparts and we have more access to tests using these.
2008 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Harald zur Hausen (German), Francoise Barre Sinoussi (French) and Luc Montagnier (French)
2007 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Mario R. Capecchi (Italian), Martin J Evans (UK), Oliver Smithies (UK)
2006 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Andrew Z Fire (US) and Craig C Mello (US)
2005 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Barry Marshall (Australian) and J Robin Warren (Australian)
2004 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Richard Axel (US) and Linda B Buck (US)
2003 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Paul C Lauterbur (US) and Peter Mansfield (UK)
2002 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Sydney Brenner (South African), H Robert Horvitz (US), John E Sulston (UK)
2001 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Leland H Hartwell (US), R Timothy Hunt (UK) and Paul M Nurse (UK)
2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Arvid Carlsson (Sweden), Paul Greengard (US) and Eric Kandel (Austrian)
1999 Nobel Prize for Medicine, given to Gunter Blobel (German).
Interesting. How many of the Europeans who won work for private hospitals? How many are academics and outside the Government run systems of their home country? The desire for profit can motivate the money behind the research more than the supposed altruistic motives of a state run health care system. I'm curious if anybody knows.
Is there some sort of underground cycle that the public isn't aware of? Get away from me truther... So we have a totally spineless president right now from the looks of it... I wonder if Korea is looking at us right now...
I am honestly becoming ashamed to be a U.S. citizen at this point, I am just thankful that I am not democratic or republican... or anarchist for that matter.
darthdiggler wrote:
Interesting. How many of the Europeans who won work for private hospitals? How many are academics and outside the Government run systems of their home country? The desire for profit can motivate the money behind the research more than the supposed altruistic motives of a state run health care system. I'm curious if anybody knows.
Most medical research is done at university hospitals, and specialized institutions. These are almost always non-profit, and so money is rarely an issue. The pressing matter is funding, which almost always come from outside sources (either the government, or drug companies).
A single-payer system is unlikely to pass, and for good reason. It won't actually fix the fundamental problems in our current system, and will most likely make them much worse. Imagine cost-plus contracts being issued to insurance companies.
However, if it is defeated that defeat will characterize any talk of healthcare reform for years to come. Unless, in a rare moment of fortitude, the Democrats continue to push the healthcare issue by introducing an entirely different bill based on a completely different system. Essentially debate by force of will.
Let me say that I really hope this is what happens. It would affirm the Administration's promise to keep debate open, get us a better bill, and actually show that there are some politicians with backbone in this damned nation.
Protesting doesn't seem to make a difference, e-mails (even en masse) don't seem to make a difference....
I am quite sure that my vote is worth absolutely nothing at this point. This in itself is not the worst place to be, but in all honesty it makes me worry for the nations future. I would like to see action taken, and I would even run around cracking jokes at rallies if it would make a real difference... that plus spamming youtube could actually... hmmm.
I have a plan, and it involves Dave Chappelle, who I would have voted for knowing full well that he would have turned it down in his good graces.
WOOT! MY VOTE MEANT SOMETHING TO ME! Anyway, what we do is go to all the town-hall meetings and just counter all republican debating points with simple jest and rhetoric... this idea has to have seriously passed through at least a dozen comedians heads. I think this would work wonders... and yes I am totally insane enough to see something like this through.
Its tricky, because you want to make it clear that this bill is crap, while also communicating a desire to see the debate continue. One way would be to get in touch with the various grassroots networks established during the campaign, and pitch an idea for a pro-healthcare reform rally after the current bill fails. Another might be to simply draw up a protest slogan that somehow encapsulates both those points. But the simplest way of going about this is to talk to people about the bill, and get them to mail their Congressman with something to the affect of what we're discussing.
dogma wrote:Its tricky, because you want to make it clear that this bill is crap, while also communicating a desire to see the debate continue. One way would be to get in touch with the various grassroots networks established during the campaign, and pitch an idea for a pro-healthcare reform rally after the current bill fails. Another might be to simply draw up a protest slogan that somehow encapsulates both those points. But the simplest way of going about this is to talk to people about the bill, and get them to mail their Congressman with something to the affect of what we're discussing.
I think I will bring that up in my night classes and see if we can get a community letter from the college.
I would hope that something like this would be easy peasy in the Bay Area but unfortunately I don't see the kind of activism that I once did, not that I visit many rallies anymore. My main point being to get entire cities to write up letters to congress expressing how they want to see this through and why they feel it is necessary.
I have thought of doing a bunch of political art instead of my next spare-time sculpture. I know a cat who is a rather well trained artist and I think he could make a career out of the material out there right now. Making fun of both sides tends to lighten the situation up, and I think well constructed visual media is a fantastic way to get your points across. Spamming the internet with positive opinions backed up by solid information pointing towards real health care reform that could stand to make our nation extremely strong. Doing this on YouTube seems to be the best option, and I am thinking of getting into flash or just working with stop-motion puppets. Really simple and crisp design that speaks to nearly everyone and fairly and honestly as possible... with a lot of funny for flavor.
More Daily Show, less Adult Swim maybe? Perhaps that is the point I am trying to get across.
The whole thing is a rather interesting conundrum as far as organizing goes. How to have rational, though not necessarily organized, debate en masse. The premise is very similar to some of the musings I've had about establishing some kind of centrist part.
If we are any type of neo-empire getting into gear for a futuristic style of cohesive expansion (no not the NWO... man...) that would benefit the whole planet I think that the interwebz needs to be flooded with huge amounts of verifiable fact on top of mass opinion. Wait... perhaps flood and organize the information that is already there and link it in a intuitionist way.... maybe? This could work, the internet is pretty tricky to get good information out of for the average person. With all of the issues floating around Health Care is the hottest one with the least proportionate REAL coverage. Sure we hear about this and that... but how is the bill? Oh, right Obama said the party was over, we can go home now folks... sorry for the interruption.
Conversations like these tend to make countries last, and I would not be surprised at all if many people (like... many many many people) feel exactly the same way. Not a revolution but a reaction to the totally ridiculous... oh man I loike to type type type apples and bananas...
Hmmm... lost my train of thought .
Anyway... this guy is speaking like I am beginning to think.
I would hope that this next clip is true in some way, mainly because I really think that a real change is still needed. I do think that Obama is a very smart guy, but he seems to lack the spine necessary to really see this all the way through. GO OBAMA GO!!! Maybe we should send a fruit basket or something ...
DarthDiggler wrote:Interesting. How many of the Europeans who won work for private hospitals? How many are academics and outside the Government run systems of their home country? The desire for profit can motivate the money behind the research more than the supposed altruistic motives of a state run health care system. I'm curious if anybody knows.
I don't know as much about the Medical Nobel, but in Economics Nobel prizes are awarded for work that can take decades to accomplish, during which time a researcher will likely work at many universities, and it'll be unlikely he'll spend much time working anywhere else. Private research is normally dedicated to specific ends and not the theoretical work that will win a Nobel.
These universities are unlikely to be private or public, at least in the sense you're probably thinking, as private and public just refers to whether students are expected to pay for their tuition. Whether or not that's the case research carries on regardless, funded privately to publically at a ratio of somewhere between 1:1 to 3:1. Exactly what gets funded varies as well, as government funding will favour high level, theoretical research that will pave the way for future medical developments, and observations of the population to set overall policy. Private sector research will focus on technologies and drugs that have a reasonable chance of being developed into a product that can be taken to market.
Both kinds of research are indispensible, and both forms are supported in every medical system around the world. I only posted the list of Nobel winners as that was a simple, direct way of disproving halonachos' claim. I work at a university, and I can tell you there's a hell of a lot of private research dollars available in the Australian system. Unfortunately I can't find anything to substantiate the amount spent in various countries, but I'd be shocked if the US spent more, let alone so much more it accounted for a meaningful portion of the extra trillion odd you spend on medical costs each year.
Here is another good debate. I thought it was funny how the Reppie Senator Orrin Hatch squirmed out of the question about the 2003 medicare rx act.
This one is well worth the watch, just watch it on YouTube.
Here is another, not particularly interesting but completely relevant.
halonachos wrote:I have no idea who the hell you're hitting seeing as though in my quote above, I haven't said ANYTHING about ALL medical breakthroughs coming from only america.
You said this;
“I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science?”
You later went on to say;
“If your latest discovery is penicillin (which a large number are allergic to and has been mainly replaced) then you are a backwards nation.”
You questioned the last time a European country contributed anything to medicine. You then went on to assume they'd contributed nothing since penicillin. I pointed out that in the last ten years more Europeans had been recognised than Americans by the Nobel committee for their contributions to medical research.
Next time, actually read what I write and try not to make me say things I didn't.
But you did say it.
Except for the fact that I said no such thing, then yes I did say it. Let me purchase you an american to australian dictionary.
What I said is a question of how many recent developements have come from europe, and the fact that I acknowledged that penicillin was discovered in europe is proof that I did not say that only america has made contributions. I guess you like to make things up, its good to have an imagination, but you shouldn't make up statements and then attribute them to someone who didn't say it.
Again, I questioned the recent(not ten years) medical advancements so anything withing 1 year, 2 years, etc. Recent is subjective. I guess the voices told you that I said "I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science in the last ten years?" as opposed to what I said.
Learn to read, and learn to interpret what I say. I don't write too many things with hidden meanings on the internet. Either that or see your psychiatrist about that imaginary guy saying things under my username.
Also, high costs go into specialist care. In terms of specialist ratios to general physicians we rule.
When physicians were asked about another more elective procedure, hip replacement, the gap between the other four countries and the United States widened. The survey found that 93 percent and 92 percent of New Zealand and U.K. physicians, respectively, and 60 percent and 70 percent of Canadian and Australian doctors, respectively, said that a sixty-five-year-old patient who required a routine hip replacement would have to wait more than six months, compared with 1 percent of U.S. physicians. For this procedure, the United States is unique in that 51 percent of U.S. doctors reported that their patients would wait less than one week for a hip replacement operation.
To sum it up; the UK, NZ, Canadian, and Australian doctors mostly believe that a patient looking for hip replacement would have to wait more than 6 months. While half of american physicians said they would have to wait less than a weekand 1% said they would have to wait at least 6 months. If we look at america's 2 specialists per 1 general practicioner we are doing quite well.
Now sebster, this does not mean I am saying that europe, etc doesn't have any specialists so don't even try to pull that b.s again.
What I said is a question of how many recent developements have come from europe
Thing is though you said this whilst claiming the use of anaesthetic as an example of the advantages of the system used in the USA, a development not exclusive to the USA at all, a point you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge and which took place about 200 years ago. And then complain when a top of the head example of penicillin is used as an example of a medical advancement made in Europe. You made a crack about Europe being a backwards country...hmmm..
I think what you might have meant to say and what you did actually infer are two quite separte things in this instance.
I don't write too many things with hidden meanings on the internet
or especially clear ones often I'm afraid.
Your summary is interesting too : a more accurate one would be in the UK, NZ, Canada and Australia a person will get a hip replacement in a period of over 6 months waiting time on average. In America most people would not get one at all as they couldn't afford to pay for it.
I then said yes, anasthesia was used, but it was used for schitzen giggles. While in boston a dentist decided to use it for tooth extractions. While we had people in the middle east cutting cataracts out before anyone else. Did I complain about the example being used, no, I made a statement to infer that it has been replaced by newer things.
And yes Eporue is backwards.
Yesmy summary is interesting. Its basic debate logic, why the hell would I say something to go against my point?
But its also important to note that those in england, etc would get their hip surgeries faster if they paid for them privately.
Bwahahaha, 11 weeks is still 2+ months. You europeans are poor I tells ya, poor. And thar be gold in them hills yonder.
If I made it to easy to read then I wouldn't have any fun.
Have you ever noticed though that its easier for you?
Atman is probably the only one of your group that isn't here to attack my thoughts.
Truly there is no hope for my argument.
Every time I say something I have 3 or 4 people attack it.
Y'all just attack and attack and attack. Dogma's just given in to the govt.
Other times its because you're european and sebster's australian.
Unless you live here, then you don't know our system after all, its america's healthcare plan, not the worlds.
halonachos wrote:
Except for the fact that I said no such thing, then yes I did say it. Let me purchase you an american to australian dictionary.
What I said is a question of how many recent developements have come from europe, and the fact that I acknowledged that penicillin was discovered in europe is proof that I did not say that only america has made contributions. I guess you like to make things up, its good to have an imagination, but you shouldn't make up statements and then attribute them to someone who didn't say it.
Combining this...
halonachos wrote:
I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science?
With this...
halonachos wrote:
The anesthetic was used for "laughing gas" parties. Hardly a medical advancement. If your latest discovery is penicillin (which a large number are allergic to and has been mainly replaced) then you are a backwards nation.
Especially this part...
halonachos wrote:
(which a large number are allergic to and has been mainly replaced)
Makes it clear that you only acknowledged penicillin in order to trivialize the role Europe has played in advancing medical science. What is with you an trivializing things? You really need to stop that.
halonachos wrote:
Again, I questioned the recent(not ten years) medical advancements so anything withing 1 year, 2 years, etc. Recent is subjective. I guess the voices told you that I said "I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science in the last ten years?" as opposed to what I said.
What? Dude, you're digging your own grave. Yes, Sebster is making an inference based upon your commentary but, given your clear stance of 'AMERICA YEAH' over a number of threads, it is far from a bad inference. However, trying to claim that by recent you mean "1 year, 2 years, etc." is indicative of three things:
1) You don't understand the timetable of research as a whole.
2) You're desperately trying to backpedal out of a poorly thought out comment.
3) You haven't considered what the comparison of the last 2 years means for your overall 'argument'.
halonachos wrote:
Learn to read, and learn to interpret what I say. I don't write too many things with hidden meanings on the internet. Either that or see your psychiatrist about that imaginary guy saying things under my username.
You don't want him to interpret what you're saying. That's what he did by making an inference. You want him to consider only the letter of your language, which is what I'm doing now. It isn't much better. It might even be worse.
halonachos wrote:
Also, high costs go into specialist care. In terms of specialist ratios to general physicians we rule.
When physicians were asked about another more elective procedure, hip replacement, the gap between the other four countries and the United States widened. The survey found that 93 percent and 92 percent of New Zealand and U.K. physicians, respectively, and 60 percent and 70 percent of Canadian and Australian doctors, respectively, said that a sixty-five-year-old patient who required a routine hip replacement would have to wait more than six months, compared with 1 percent of U.S. physicians. For this procedure, the United States is unique in that 51 percent of U.S. doctors reported that their patients would wait less than one week for a hip replacement operation.
To sum it up; the UK, NZ, Canadian, and Australian doctors mostly believe that a patient looking for hip replacement would have to wait more than 6 months. While half of american physicians said they would have to wait less than a weekand 1% said they would have to wait at least 6 months. If we look at america's 2 specialists per 1 general practicioner we are doing quite well.
The next questions are:"Do people need hip replacements within 1 week of requesting them?", and "Do effective diagnostic procedures offset the need for immediate medical action?".
Remember, one of the critiques of the American system is that we have too many specialists. Many of whom are forced to perform the mundane services of a GP at a cost which far outstrips those of a GP.
halonachos wrote:
Now sebster, this does not mean I am saying that europe, etc doesn't have any specialists so don't even try to pull that b.s again.
halonachos wrote:
Y'all just attack and attack and attack.
That's what debate is. Active criticism, which you could always use to improve your own abilities.
halonachos wrote:
Dogma's just given in to the govt.
Wait, I thought drawing inferences was a bad thing. Apparently I've written somewhere that the government is great, glorious, and all knowing. Then again it may simply be that I don't treat the state as a universal source of fear like you seem to believe is necessary. I thought individualists strode bravely into the frontier. How far our rhetorical myths have fallen.
halonachos wrote:
Unless you live here, then you don't know our system after all, its america's healthcare plan, not the worlds.
Strangely enough, they still have the ability to comment on something that isn't theirs. Unless you plan to stop considering Europe backwards, or anything at all for that matter, I suggest you rethink this stance.
I guess nobody saw it, so I guess I hid it in there pretty well.
When europe stops thinking that america is barbaric because we don't have a healthcare plan and we can actually own guns, then I will stop calling them backwards.
And Dogma, I ask you; would you rather wait for a ip replacement or just get it done? Keep in mind the pain that comes from it.
halonachos wrote:Except for the fact that I said no such thing, then yes I did say it. Let me purchase you an american to australian dictionary.
What I said is a question of how many recent developements have come from europe, and the fact that I acknowledged that penicillin was discovered in europe is proof that I did not say that only america has made contributions. I guess you like to make things up, its good to have an imagination, but you shouldn't make up statements and then attribute them to someone who didn't say it.
Again, I questioned the recent(not ten years) medical advancements so anything withing 1 year, 2 years, etc. Recent is subjective. I guess the voices told you that I said "I will say this, what's the last contribution a european person has given to medical science in the last ten years?" as opposed to what I said.
Learn to read, and learn to interpret what I say. I don't write too many things with hidden meanings on the internet. Either that or see your psychiatrist about that imaginary guy saying things under my username.
There was nothing hidden in what you said. You have consistently asserted the dominance of the US system, and questioned the number of developments that have come out of Europe. You later claimed Europe was backwards if penicillin was their last medical discovery. When it was pointed out to you that Europeans have been awarded more Nobel prizes for medical discoveries than Americans, you're pretending the whole thing was framed purely as a question. This is transparently untrue.
You're not fooling anyone, and at this point I'm going to ask you again to man up, and concede the point. We all try poor arguments from time to time and see them get shot down. Admitting it won't make you less of a man, and it won't cost you any respect. Being honest and admitting you were wrong may just earn you some respect.
Trying to assert that 'recent' meant medical advancements in the last two or so years is stupid. You know it is stupid. Medical systems are not and never will be assessed on the research productivity of only the last two years. I picked ten years as a broad figure, you could argue to increase or decrease that number by some amount, but your earlier effort to extend the time frame out to the beginning of the century is only made sillier by this second effort to limit it to two years.
Also, high costs go into specialist care. In terms of specialist ratios to general physicians we rule.
When physicians were asked about another more elective procedure, hip replacement, the gap between the other four countries and the United States widened. The survey found that 93 percent and 92 percent of New Zealand and U.K. physicians, respectively, and 60 percent and 70 percent of Canadian and Australian doctors, respectively, said that a sixty-five-year-old patient who required a routine hip replacement would have to wait more than six months, compared with 1 percent of U.S. physicians. For this procedure, the United States is unique in that 51 percent of U.S. doctors reported that their patients would wait less than one week for a hip replacement operation.
To sum it up; the UK, NZ, Canadian, and Australian doctors mostly believe that a patient looking for hip replacement would have to wait more than 6 months. While half of american physicians said they would have to wait less than a weekand 1% said they would have to wait at least 6 months. If we look at america's 2 specialists per 1 general practicioner we are doing quite well.
Now sebster, this does not mean I am saying that europe, etc doesn't have any specialists so don't even try to pull that b.s again.
No, because you didn't say or imply that.
However, you are right that the US system is better in several regards, in fact, it isn't just hip replacements. When it comes to non-urgent, profitable surgeries the US has very short waiting times, so knee reconstructions and all manner of similar operations are done very quickly. Of course, the US is paying about 8% more of its GDP for medical costs than the UK, if you were paying at the UK rate you'd be saving around a trillion dollars a year. And there's also the parts of medicine that aren't non-urgent and highly profitable. Infant mortality in the US is about 25% higher than the UK. Life expectancy in the US is around half a year shorter than the UK.
So if the choice is between having a shorter wait for hip surgery or saving a trillion dollars, having more babies survive and living longer... well it's a toughie.
Except for the fact that americans have won 3 times the number of nobel prizes than the UK in its entire history, then yes, we have far less winners.
While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[5] And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Too bad some of you guys don't count all born babies as living.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about 0.005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22%-25% lower reported IMR
halonachos wrote:Except for the fact that americans have won 3 times the number of nobel prizes than the UK in its entire history
I'm still lost on what the hell this has to do with your healthcare system, since most medical breakthroughs come out of universities and independent researchers. Including a whole load of those nobel prize winners you mention.
halonachos wrote:Except for the fact that americans have won 3 times the number of nobel prizes than the UK in its entire history, then yes, we have far less winners.
With about six times our population as well. Looks like your education system might be fethed as well then.
Our universities are top notch, just ask all of the foreigners that come to america just for the education. In fact my chemistry T.A. is going back to India because her four years are up.
halonachos wrote:Our universities are top notch, just ask all of the foreigners that come to america just for the education. In fact my chemistry T.A. is going back to India because her four years are up.
yeh your universities, many of which are publicly funded. Again, what does that have to do with your healthcare system?
halonachos wrote:I guess nobody saw it, so I guess I hid it in there pretty well.
There are 3 people here who clearly made the same inference.
halonachos wrote:
When europe stops thinking that america is barbaric because we don't have a healthcare plan and we can actually own guns, then I will stop calling them backwards.
And this only furthers the point.
halonachos wrote:
And Dogma, I ask you; would you rather wait for a ip replacement or just get it done? Keep in mind the pain that comes from it.
Preference isn't a factor here. A bad hip is not life threatening. Does it hurt? Sure. So do all those back injuries, joint problems, and other assorted issues which go untreated due to insufficient or nonexistent insurance. And that doesn't factor in the potential for early diagnosis, and therefore scheduling, in a system with superior preventative measures.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Too bad some of you guys don't count all born babies as living.
I take it you've never heard of stillborn infants?
halonachos wrote:Because they are applied to medicine.
Uh, yeah, some of them are. But that isn't really the point. The point is that looking at the history of Nobel prize is irrelevant when considering the present state of healthcare. Not that looking at the Nobel prize is particularly relevant to the matter at all. Scientific breakthroughs are frequently not brought to market in the nation in which they are made. Just ask the English how they feel about the American commercialization of technical development in the old country.
halonachos wrote:
Our universities are top notch, just ask all of the foreigners that come to america just for the education. In fact my chemistry T.A. is going back to India because her four years are up.
Sure, right after I ask all the American students who go abroad to earn their post-graduate degrees. One of the main reasons so many people come here to be educated arises from the generous aid packages, and preferential admission status, granted to foreign students.
Our universities are great, but they aren't significantly better than European universities.
As far as how the schools compare, I don't know who wins, or if anyone truly wins for that matter.
I mean to compare the US school to another country is disasterous. I mean we all have different policies, like japan will take those who don't pass enough out of school and teach them a trade. IIRC.
Also, like I have said before, the schools are run by city government. The schools I went to had "academy" programs that included an extra class in a specific field while the next city over doesn't have anything like that.
halonachos wrote:As far as how the schools compare, I don't know who wins, or if anyone truly wins for that matter.
I mean to compare the US school to another country is disasterous. I mean we all have different policies, like japan will take those who don't pass enough out of school and teach them a trade. IIRC.
Also, like I have said before, the schools are run by city government. The schools I went to had "academy" programs that included an extra class in a specific field while the next city over doesn't have anything like that.
That's incorrect. Public schools are overseen by the district board, which is itself an extension the state board. Private schools are overseen by their own board, and mus qualify for accreditation with the state. Well, they don't have to, but it would stupid of them not to do so. However, we weren't talking about the public education system. We were talking about the university system, which is a different beast altogether.
And yes those stafford loans don't count. They aren't used to fund the school specifically. While a state collects taxes and distributes them among universities in the state only, the stafford loan is given to a prospective student for them to pay for tuition for any college across the nation and more often than not, you'll get screwed over by the amount they loan. My loan didn't even cover the base cost of my classes and I was only taking 14 credit hours.
halonachos wrote:reds8n brought it up. BTW universities are funded by city or state, not by federal government .
yeh aka. "publicly funded," as in not private like your healthcare system. And I'm still not being told what it has to do with your healthcare system. Whoever brought it up, you still seemed to be using it as an argument against public healthcare.
halonachos wrote:Well, what are the reasons for going abroad?
Because a degree from Oxford or Cambridge carries a lot of weight for example. And in this modern world international experience is a handy thing to have in many fields.
Surely seeing the world isn't one of them.
It's probably nice to go somewhere less barbarous.
That's funny for you to say seeing as though the public schools in norfolk got longer holidays than my old high school did, and we were in the same state.
Its also funny that they had an easier GPA scale than I did.
halonachos wrote:And yes those stafford loans don't count. They aren't used to fund the school specifically. While a state collects taxes and distributes them among universities in the state only, the stafford loan is given to a prospective student for them to pay for tuition for any college across the nation and more often than not, you'll get screwed over by the amount they loan. My loan didn't even cover the base cost of my classes and I was only taking 14 credit hours.
That fact that you often get screwed (How do you get screwed? You're getting nearly free money) is irrelevant. Its still money to be used for the express purpose of obtaining an education. It is funding no matter how you slice it; especially as it is restricted to accredited institutions. And let's not even get into the Federal research grants which universities are so often afraid of losing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:That's funny for you to say seeing as though the public schools in norfolk got longer holidays than my old high school did, and we were in the same state.
Its also funny that they had an easier GPA scale than I did.
How is that related to anything that's been said? What are you talking about?
ffs all this university talk is vering this topic completely of course.
I only brought it up to inform halonachos that all the medical breakthroughs he was lavishing all over the US healthcare system were in fact not much to do with the US' private healthcare system and in fact more to do with largely publicly funded universities in the US.
halonachos wrote:As far as how the schools compare, I don't know who wins, or if anyone truly wins for that matter.
I mean to compare the US school to another country is disasterous. I mean we all have different policies, like japan will take those who don't pass enough out of school and teach them a trade. IIRC.
Also, like I have said before, the schools are run by city government. The schools I went to had "academy" programs that included an extra class in a specific field while the next city over doesn't have anything like that.
That's incorrect. Public schools are overseen by the district board, which is itself an extension the state board. Private schools are overseen by their own board, and mus qualify for accreditation with the state. Well, they don't have to, but it would stupid of them not to do so. However, we weren't talking about the public education system. We were talking about the university system, which is a different beast altogether.
That's why I was saying that they are run by city, to disprove what you had said earlier. You forgot about that point I guess. Most of the time I have been irrelevent is when you forget a point you had made earlier.
Also, the only reason I brought this up is because reds8n did.
where did Watson and Crick do their work again...?
Anyway : I wasn't raising any issues to do with education, no weasling out on that excuse, I merely used a throw away to such pointing out the obvious flaw in the numbers mentioned for Noble Prizes.
.... I was so tempted to make a Norfolk turkey joke of some kind but sometimes you just have to chicke.... I'll get me coat.
There is a difference between state, local, and federal government. The feds don't listen, the state almost does, and the local will. I support state and local, the fed is beginning to tick me off.
OT With this healthcare thing, we're going to have to create a whole new agency of bureaucrats and pay them wages and then build a building for them and buy a bunch of red tape. Not only that, but they're responsible for healthcare giving across the nation. If they made a plan, it should be a donation(not a tax) and run either by city or state.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Way different norfolk, we keep military stuff in ours.
halonachos wrote:Also, the only reason I brought this up is because reds8n did.
whoever brought it up you still used the idea of medical breakthroughs to support the current US healthcare system. There are plenty of your posts I could quote if you want me to.
The basic point is that if you look at key indicators such as infant mortality and life expectancy, the USA is roughly at the same level as other developed countries (UK, Canada, Japan) but is spending roughly twice the GDP to get there.
Apparently this can be explained by the fact that the governments of the UK, Canada and Japan conceal half their deaths in order to reinforce the argument that the US healthcare system is inefficient and needs reform.
halonachos wrote:
That's why I was saying that they are run by city, to disprove what you had said earlier. You forgot about that point I guess. Most of the time I have been irrelevent is when you forget a point you had made earlier.
What's run by the city? Public schools are run by the school district, which is independent of municipal government, and overseen by the state school board. Universities aren't overseen by anyone accept the state accreditation board, and the federal bureaucrats who monitor the distribution of funds with respect to research.
You brought cities into this for no reason at all. They aren't relevant in any way. Not to public schools, and certainly not to universities.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:There is a difference between state, local, and federal government. The feds don't listen, the state almost does, and the local will. I support state and local, the fed is beginning to tick me off.
There is no difference from the standpoint of publicly funded versus privately funded.
halonachos wrote:
With this healthcare thing, we're going to have to create a whole new agency of bureaucrats and pay them wages and then build a building for them and buy a bunch of red tape. Not only that, but they're responsible for healthcare giving across the nation. If they made a plan, it should be a donation(not a tax) and run either by city or state.
Yeah, if its a single payer system, but that isn't the only way to involve the government in healthcare.
As for your donation theory: utter nonsense. Morality must always cave to reality.
Well, whatwhat, I do remember what I said so no you don't need to quote me.
Now killkrazy, I looked this up and used that only because I couldn't find the study reported in a Forbes magazine article that compared infant mortality by birth weight and it showed that american infants were better off than their counterparts. I will not say that it is true until I can post it here for the sake of mankind.
Dogma, you elect a school board, and the district it governs is defined as:
A school district is a unique body corporate and politic, usually with districts being coequal to that of a city or a county, and has similar powers including taxation and eminent domain.
So I will gladly say that we are both right because it could be either a county or a state. Where I live its done by city.
There is no difference in definiton between the levels of government, but the way they are applied is different. For example, a state government isn't going to fund the military and won't fund anything outside of the state. While the cities public funds will go towards things within city limits.
And how is my donation theory nonsense? If a musical group made more money through donations than they did through normal retail prices, then we could hope that it would repeat itself.
We would hope that those uninsured would donate because 1) Its tax free and 2) It would help them and others in the same boat as them. At least those that pay taxes because if you don't pay taxes then you can't donate obviously.
Also, about 1/6 of americans lack insurance which means that the remaining 5/6 are left to choose to pay or not. If we go with the polls(50-50) then that means that half of the 5/6 would donate( so 5/12 of america would donate). We could guess that those who support it would donate generously and could surpass the amount they would have given in taxes. We can take into fact that most of the rich are philanthropists and would be willing to also donate more than they would get taxed.
This could make up for the remaining 5/12 of americans that don't support it.
However, money is a powerful motivator as well, so those that don't believe in it may donate some just to get a tax deduction.
The reality is that morality is always present and is a strong motivator, however money can also sway those that don't follow morality. That's the reality of things.
halanchos wrote:And how is my donation theory nonsense? If a musical group made more money through donations than they did through normal retail prices, then we could hope that it would repeat itself.
Could that be... a platform of hope? Perhaps and maybe? Dude, expecting people to do this kind of stuff is just ridiculous, the outcome will be minimal. If people would donate anyway, why not let the government provide some more efficiency by requiring them to? Oh, well I think I would rather get a new pair of shoes this month... or something like that.
Anyway, here is a really good clip from a talkshow addressing some very important issues and I feel pretty much the same way as the talkshow host about this one.
Well my question is this, if the government already spends "too much" then are we trying to cuts costs by creating a new program?
I see this, we spend a lot more GDP already right?
So what are we doing with this new program?
If it increases costs then won't our GDP spent just increase further?
If we cut costs and according to this guy the government is very efficient so we can't cut the governments' administrative costs then we must cut their care costs.
halonachos wrote:Except for the fact that americans have won 3 times the number of nobel prizes than the UK in its entire history, then yes, we have far less winners.
I already addressed this, when I pointed out that the medical system in the US 50 or 60 years ago was better than the systems in Europe, hence the high numbers of Nobel prizes given to US citizens back then. I then pointed out that we're talking about the system right now, and that should actually be concerned that a system that so totally dominated medical research 50 years ago is now just another country.
But then you went off on talking about how recent should be the last two years, only to return to your position of defending US healthcare on the basis of the number of Nobel prizes won 50 years ago. It's safe to say your position is quite incoherent.
Too bad some of you guys don't count all born babies as living.
I've heard this a lot of times from people defending US healthcare. It is true that there are difference in methodology, but these differences are minor, not a factor in every country with a superior mortality rate, and cannot account for the scale of the difference in figures. They also cannot account for the reality that US healthcare is not improving its infant mortality rates, while leading countries continue to improve their's.
Although such extremely premature infants typically accounted for only about 0.005 of all live-born children, their exclusion from both the numerator and the denominator in the reported IMR led to an estimated 22%-25% lower reported IMR
You need to cite your sources. There's a lot of awful work out there, and it's hard to properly assess the quality of a sentence just pulled out of the ether.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:Because they are applied to medicine.
Our universities are top notch, just ask all of the foreigners that come to america just for the education. In fact my chemistry T.A. is going back to India because her four years are up.
Your universities are better than the universities in Europe, and for evidence of this you point out the Indian student who came to study at your university. Which would be damning if India was in Europe. Or if Indians didn't travel to all the developed countries. Or if students didn't go from developed countries to other developed countries to take advantage of the specialisations of various universities. Or if anyone was saying US universities were bad (US tertiary education is excellent, particularly on the research front. But that doesn't have much to do with healthcare.)
Given that none of those things are true, what's your point?
Okay, this is from June. What the hell happened? Am I completely delusional to actually listen to the undertones of Obama's address? Speaking of which, does he have an official address to the nation on this issue? Why does the media have so much control over this much misinformation?
Man... the confusion dothe set into my mind yet again, but now I truly and honestly do not know what to expect besides change. Maybe this is a trick within a trick that we are playing on ourselves, but I think that Obama is going to re-label the change so that he can look like a hero and get the next election. That is fine, as long as it works out in the publics favor. So far I have not been thoroughly convinced that anything besides single payer will remedy the problems that this issue was set in from the get-go. It is about all sorts of nonsense besides health care reform now, and I can't even think straight about it at this point.
Obama rests his entire career on this, and hope to see some sort of amazing batting average emerge on all of these issues. Just knock them out of the park, keep it factual like the Cash for Clunkers program and these issues will breeze by like Sunday lemonade.
halonachos wrote:Well my question is this, if the government already spends "too much" then are we trying to cuts costs by creating a new program?
I see this, we spend a lot more GDP already right?
So what are we doing with this new program?
If it increases costs then won't our GDP spent just increase further?
If we cut costs and according to this guy the government is very efficient so we can't cut the governments' administrative costs then we must cut their care costs.
Unless we remove the costs of private insurers.
That is the key point.
Savings in US healthcare expenditure would come from the reduction in profits of private insurers (as well as economies of scale.) That's why there is such fierce lobbying against it.
Also, healthcare alone doesn't always lead to life span.
forbes wrote:The average American works 25 hours a week; the average Frenchman 18; the average Italian a bit more than 16 and a half. Even the hardest-working Europeans--the British, who put in an average of 21 and half hours--are far more laid-back than their American cousins.
Compared with Europeans, Americans are more likely to be employed and more likely to work longer hours--employed Americans put in about three hours more per week than employed Frenchmen. Most important, Americans take fewer (and shorter) vacations. The average American takes off less than six weeks a year; the average Frenchman almost 12. The world champion vacationers are the Swedes, at 16 and a half weeks per year.
More working hours lead to increased stress and an increase in the amount of fast food that will be consumed on the way to work or while waiting for a meeting.
If we take these into account then we see a trend that follows the average lifespan. The UK works a little less and has a slightly higher life span. This is just a guess at a theory, but I think working hours may affect lifespan.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Are europeans lazy, no, its just that we don't like to take vacations sometimes. Probably because of family.
halonachos wrote:But the removal of profits leads to the comapnies failing and going under, making the government healthcare the only healthcare available...
Also,read this, although you could say that it's just a bunch of lies as well.
It hasn't in the UK, France or Japan.
The USA's infant mortality is one of the highest in the developed world.
It's not very high. I mean it's something like 5.6 per 10,000 live births compared to 4.8 in the UK or whatever.
The UK's stillbirth rate is higher than the USA's rate.
The point is that you are paying twice the money that we are to achieve these rates.
Well, again you have to look at stillbirth's and the reporting of what is a stillbirth. He also says that we have a larger population of people that tend to have multiple births or premature births.
I'm going to find that damned study showing that american infants have a better survival weight when comparing birth weights, I swear I will. It's my personal holy grail.
Here is Rachel Maddow on Filibusting... funny word, oh goddamit... that is what it means. How, does that ... hmmm.
...Wow, so they are cheating in every way possible, how in the frakking hell is that okay? So, when an important issue is up for debate this country is no longer a democracy? What in the frakking hell... that is all I can say right now.
This is not very surprising to me, but it is good that the information is out there now.
In the UK, a bill can be 'talked out'. This means that opposition MPs make very long speeches until the time allowed for the bill to be voted on has expired.
In the Japanese Diet they have the 'cow walk'. Opposition MPs simply walk very very slowly from their seat to the podium, when it is their turn to speak.
Of course you can't use these tactics very much, because it pisses off the electorate and they will vote you out of your seat at the next opportunity if they get angry enough.
That's probably easier in the USA than Japan or Britain as you have more regular elections.
Absolutely no ide if this has been brought up yet, as I didn't really fancy ploughing my way through all the posts!
But for all those worried that Social Healthcare would damage the quality....well, if you can afford Private, go Private. It's what I fully intend to do as soon as I can afford, as much for the better quality and faster treatment times as my personal belief that if you can afford to, it's best to unburden the NHS with your own care.
Having Social Healthcare doesn't impact upon the Private sector as much as you might think, if it all. One could argue you are likely to improve the Private sector, as the best Doctors will want higher pay than Social might provide, thus go into private practice.
I cannot help but see the arguments against Social Healthcare as the panic and hysteria of people with big fat fingers in the Private Pie trying to maintain their stake and wealth in it. Which is pretty fething immoral I'm sure you'll agree.
Mad doc grotsnik wrote:I cannot help but see the arguments against Social Healthcare as the panic and hysteria of people with big fat fingers in the Private Pie trying to maintain their stake and wealth in it. Which is pretty fething immoral I'm sure you'll agree.
It pretty much is, and you combine that with the obvious non-partisanship of the Reppies, you get our current situation. The Reppies are even trying to cheat this one out from under everyone's noses as if they are promoting some service to the country. As it stands now the whole situation is starting to look a lot more like a presidential campaign all over again... In case these corporate interests didn't know the election is over, and the other one is not for... years.
I get sickened when a lot of the obvious lies get tied into real debate, and I appreciate the fact that the president addressed that and even inferred responsibility to FOX NEWS in their adventure to get ratings. Man... O'reilly has to be one of the stupidest... wait, Glenn Beck, yeah... trust FOX NEWS .
Oh arr. According to statistics I heard on the BBC, there are some 75,000,000 Americans either without Healthcare, or with inadequate Plans.
Thats pretty much the population of Britain. And you still think Social Healthcare is the Great Satan?
Perhaps you are one of them. And you don't know it because to date you've enjoyed good health. How quickly will you change your tune when things affect you, like a dibilating disease you thought you were covered for strikes you down, and you end up gak creek without a paddle? But of course, you have to be quite spectacularly selfish, or have a vested interest in it's avoidance, to denounce Social Health.
halonachos wrote:
Dogma, you elect a school board, and the district it governs is defined as:
A school district is a unique body corporate and politic, usually with districts being coequal to that of a city or a county, and has similar powers including taxation and eminent domain.
Do you understand the word 'usually'? Or 'coequal' fpr that matter? Nothing in that definitions says 'school districts are equivalent to municipal government'.
halonachos wrote:
So I will gladly say that we are both right because it could be either a county or a state. Where I live its done by city.
I will gladly say that you are wrong. It isn't done by city, anywhere, its done by district. Sometimes districts coincide with cities, but they are not the same.
halonachos wrote:
There is no difference in definiton between the levels of government, but the way they are applied is different. For example, a state government isn't going to fund the military and won't fund anything outside of the state. While the cities public funds will go towards things within city limits.
So there is no difference between levels of government. Sometimes programs outreach municipal bounds, sometimes they don't.
halonachos wrote:
And how is my donation theory nonsense? If a musical group made more money through donations than they did through normal retail prices, then we could hope that it would repeat itself.
Do you want me to put the word 'hope' in bold?
halonachos wrote:
We would hope that those uninsured would donate because 1) Its tax free and 2) It would help them and others in the same boat as them. At least those that pay taxes because if you don't pay taxes then you can't donate obviously.
Also, about 1/6 of americans lack insurance which means that the remaining 5/6 are left to choose to pay or not. If we go with the polls(50-50) then that means that half of the 5/6 would donate( so 5/12 of america would donate). We could guess that those who support it would donate generously and could surpass the amount they would have given in taxes. We can take into fact that most of the rich are philanthropists and would be willing to also donate more than they would get taxed.
Why would they donate generously? What does that follow from?
halonachos wrote:
The reality is that morality is always present and is a strong motivator, however money can also sway those that don't follow morality. That's the reality of things.
Is it now? Are you morally obligated to help the infirm?
So I have been doing a fair amount of research (I prefer the term "looking into" because this is utter madness to comprehend fully) into this whole debate, if you want to call it that. As far as I can tell we are in an extremely tight situation that basically boils down to money, regardless of the political under-tones.
I found this article to be very informative (extremely long and in depth, much easier to understand if it were in a visual or audio-based version.) but it just makes me wish their were smarter news people out there right now... wait... bad comment, perhaps the companies that own all of these journalists should stand up and walk out instead.
Good article vs. all the bad/ummm... what articles I have been reading, not to say that this is better... but it clearly is .
This is Keith hennessey, who is Republican, and quite frankly I would like some form of verification of this guys points because of that. Not to say that I trust the Democrats completely, but they show a better face to put it lightly.
Dogma, how in the hell are you going to say that it isn't done by city when in fact I live in a state that has school systems done by the city. My experience with this being true trumps your belief that it isn't. I was trying to reach some middle ground and be nice, but no.
Am I morally obligated to help the infirm, yes. Am I morally obligated to pay money to help those who can't afford care, yes.
However, I am also morally obligated to take care of my family, with my family outweighing strangers in any situation. I am also morally obligated to take care of myself.
Seeing as though we are in a recession, I am interested in keeping money within my family and I am therefore doing a greater good in terms of quality of that good than if I just gave money to a homeless person.
And why would people donate generously you ask? Perhaps it will be because they believe in the cause and want to see it put in place. I believe in civic league sports and am more willing to donate to civic leagues than I am to a homeless bum. Why, because I believe that the civic league instills values and that giving money to a bum does relatively nothing besides short term benefits.
Halanchos, if/when this health care reform takes place, and somehow you managed to make 250k$+ over the last year, you should worry ever so much about it. If not, then I am not exactly sure why you would worry so much.
Anyway, I do not support the Iraq war, my aunt doesn't like the public school systems so she puts her kid in private school. At no point were either of us told that we could just forget about paying those taxes, and in all honesty the fact remains that I support this country as I can until I decide to drop dead or move out.
If you feel unjustly taxed and the government is just eating away at your wallet... leave the country and find a better one. I plan to do this if the reform doesn't make any real changes, you can plan to do it if it actually manages to.
Well, to be honest, I plan to make over 250,000 a year after a few years of civil service.
Where I live, one can make $300,000 a year as an orthopedic trauma surgeon.(The guys who fix your joints after serious injury).
I never said anything about not paying taxes. All I said is that I personally believe that this healthcare plan should be a donation instead of a tax.
This plan isn't going to change a thing. I may leave the country though because the nation is split 50-50. If it is passed, then half of the nation will be upset(the half with guns) that the government didn't listen to them, if violence erupts then I may leave. If it isn't passed then the same thing happens minus the guns.
halonachos wrote:Dogma, how in the hell are you going to say that it isn't done by city when in fact I live in a state that has school systems done by the city. My experience with this being true trumps your belief that it isn't. I was trying to reach some middle ground and be nice, but no.
Because I know it isn't done by municipality. For a fact. Your district might coincide with your city, but that isn't the same thing as having education overseen by the municipality itself. And, honestly, I have no reason to trust anything you say. You have shown a clear propensity to ignore, or distort, facts in the course of argument. Whether or not this is intentional it is clearly something you do.
After writing this it occurs to me that schools might be overseen by municipality where you live, while they aren't where I live. Damnable state legislative differences.
halonachos wrote:
Am I morally obligated to help the infirm, yes. Am I morally obligated to pay money to help those who can't afford care, yes.
However, I am also morally obligated to take care of my family, with my family outweighing strangers in any situation. I am also morally obligated to take care of myself.
Seeing as though we are in a recession, I am interested in keeping money within my family and I am therefore doing a greater good in terms of quality of that good than if I just gave money to a homeless person.
So you're allowing the recession (an economic factor, one might even call it a circumstance) to overcome your moral obligation to help the infirm, and the destitute.
halonachos wrote:
And why would people donate generously you ask? Perhaps it will be because they believe in the cause and want to see it put in place. I believe in civic league sports and am more willing to donate to civic leagues than I am to a homeless bum. Why, because I believe that the civic league instills values and that giving money to a bum does relatively nothing besides short term benefits.
See, here's the thing. You're talking about what might happen, I'm talking about what must happen in the course of logical necessity. One of those points is a very strong one, the other is just speculation. I'll leave you to determine which.
Halanchos wrote:This plan isn't going to change a thing. I may leave the country though because the nation is split 50-50. If it is passed, then half of the nation will be upset(the half with guns) that the government didn't listen to them, if violence erupts then I may leave. If it isn't passed then the same thing happens minus the guns.
Well, I agree with you there. I think that there may end up being some very serious repercussions regardless of which way this reform goes. I find it funny in a pretty demented way because the country is not actually split down the middle regardless of what the Republicans say, there is a huge multi-faceted rift in this country that pits old vs young, black vs. white, gun vs. no-gun, up vs. down, and so on.
Besides being way too easy to say that 50/50 has any aspect of reality is wrong, there is truth to the gun vs. no-gun thing. Overall their simply is no way for an armed uprising to actually make a difference. Non-violence from all sides could provide a very real cultural debate, which is what this has basically boiled down to.
The main question is, does it even matter that people are without healthcare while in practically the same situation as most of the country even matter? Should they have access to this care when they are in need, or are they forced to rely on the kindness of others... which is a frakking joke. Even if you are a kind enough person to donate more money than the government would tax you (explain this to me 12 more times so the mantra actually means something to me besides jargonistic side-stepping of taxes) most people are not, this whole people are inherently good thing is flawed so deeply and on so many philosophical and psychological levels.
Halanchos wrote:Why, because I believe that the civic league instills values and that giving money to a bum does relatively nothing besides short term benefits.
So... hmmm. If someone is getting money that you donate they are not a bum? Or do you have some sort of relative scale of bum-atude? I know real bums, and they are the kind of people that ignore their health most of the time, and would not be a burden on the system at any rate. The rest of the people that you are talking about supporting/not really though supporting, these people are not bad (nor are some of those bums by your definitions) and many of them are simply homeless due to the recession. I live in California where there is no extra work, if you are fired that is pretty much it and you better hope that you have a safety net set up. I live in California where the cost of living is so high that you actually save money by being homeless; and I am quite sure that most people have never worked a full time job, while going to school at night, and living out of the back of a van. I know at least 3 people that do that, and at least a dozen who have tried and failed at it, which is actually not that hard to fail at in any way.
Without my family and help from my community I would be on the street. The fact that living on the street does not really scare me, and I would prefer to just hunt rabbits in the wild does not change the fact that I am better off in a house. A house that I can barely afford to live in, a house that I am stuck in until the economy gets a boost again and jobs return. Saying that the U.S. is a country where you can do anything is like saying you can fly on the moon... which you simply cannot, especially when the cultural "system" of the U.S. is set up to keep most people on their knees.
HP wrote:Grassley added that while he did "believe it's possible to reach an agreement" on health care, the political landscape had become so polarized that it was incredibly unlikely.
Pretty much what I have been thinking, no loss, Bi-partisonship was a delay trick anyway, not particularly hard to understand why the Dems want more time to get ready for this punch. I think the Reps are going to get hit pretty hard by how this turns out.
This is really a very strange situation, I do not know what to think about all of the politics involved here.
) then use the proceeds to fund the social welfare/healthcare system.
)
.
With truly obese people, like those that can't get out of bed, there is often a feeder/fed relationship between people, the psychology is very complex.
YEAH' over a number of threads, it is far from a bad inference. However, trying to claim that by recent you mean "1 year, 2 years, etc." is indicative of three things:
