Wealth and excess cause most of our health problems. That and our desire to put off childbirth until we are in our 30's. Higher infant mortality rates can more likely be attributed to late life pregnancy, diabetes, drugs, obesity, prescription drug interactions, etc..., than quality of health care.
Not just conservatives, but the majority of all voters are proposing an alternative which is that of continuing with our current, non optimal system until such time that something superior is proposed.
The way I see it, the president had the option of calling for a program that was somewhere within the following two parameters:
One…Create a program where affluent folks would continue to receive excellent care but at a higher cost to pay for lower income folks to receive better care than they currently have.
Two…Create a program where affluent folks would receive a lower level of care at more or less the current cost and transfer the liberated benefits to the lower income folks.
The president set the mark way over towards parameter two which is the high risk / high reward (relative to his world view) end of the spectrum.
The general consensus, based on numerous recent polls, suggests that voters are somewhat receptive to parameter One but can’t (notice my amazingly witty pun) LIVE with parameter Two.
MrJoshua wrote: Wealth and excess cause most of our health problems. That and our desire to put off childbirth until we are in our 30's. Higher infant mortality rates can more likely be attributed to late life pregnancy, diabetes, drugs, obesity, prescription drug interactions, etc..., than quality of health care.
Funny thing is, I waited until I was 31 to have kids BECAUSE of the high cost of health care. It took me this long to get a job that paid enough to cover health insurance for a family. Ironic, no?
MrJoshua wrote: Wealth and excess cause most of our health problems. That and our desire to put off childbirth until we are in our 30's. Higher infant mortality rates can more likely be attributed to late life pregnancy, diabetes, drugs, obesity, prescription drug interactions, etc..., than quality of health care.
not according to the CIA. It's the statistic that is available and recognized as a good barometer of the health of a nation. If you don't go by that statistic.. then how else would you judge our overall health care? Obesity rate? I'd call that a personal choice and not an indicator of our health care system.
ignorant wrote:MrJoshua wrote: Wealth and excess cause most of our health problems. That and our desire to put off childbirth until we are in our 30's. Higher infant mortality rates can more likely be attributed to late life pregnancy, diabetes, drugs, obesity, prescription drug interactions, etc..., than quality of health care.not according to the CIA. It's the statistic that is available and recognized as a good barometer of the health of a nation. If you don't go by that statistic.. then how else would you judge our overall health care? Obesity rate? I'd call that a personal choice and not an indicator of our health care system.
It is a good measure, but like all statistics it is highly influenced by the sample population. You have taken a simple one dimensional statistic where we are behind several other countries by less than 1.5/1,0000 and called it overwhelming support of your OPINION. Is 1.5/1,000 even a statistically significant measure in that study?
OK reread what I said. It was not a study, but a count. But you are simplifying it into a single cause/single effect relationship when it cannot be treated as such.
MrJoshua wrote:ignorant wrote:It is a good measure, but like all statistics it is highly influenced by the sample population. You have taken a simple one dimensional statistic where we are behind several other countries by less than 1.5/1,0000 and called it overwhelming support of your OPINION. Is 1.5/1,000 even a statistically significant measure in that study?MrJoshua wrote: Wealth and excess cause most of our health problems. That and our desire to put off childbirth until we are in our 30's. Higher infant mortality rates can more likely be attributed to late life pregnancy, diabetes, drugs, obesity, prescription drug interactions, etc..., than quality of health care.not according to the CIA. It's the statistic that is available and recognized as a good barometer of the health of a nation. If you don't go by that statistic.. then how else would you judge our overall health care? Obesity rate? I'd call that a personal choice and not an indicator of our health care system.
It's not a study.. those statistics are published every year. Propose an alternative that is as widely accepted as infant mortality rate. How about life expectancy at birth?
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html?countryCode=xx&rankAnchorRow=#xx
where do we rank there?
ignorant wrote:triumph7 wrote: Nationalized, socialized, public option, free... whatever you call it, it has been tried in other countries and some states and has ]failed every time.Elaborate, because I do believe this statement is wrong. edit.. Let me elaborate as well. Check out the CIA factbook on infant mortality. find the countries with socialized medicine, find out they are almost always above us.CIA factbook said: This entry gives the number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year; included is the total death rate, and deaths by sex, male and female. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country.https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html The U.K., France, Netherlands, Australia, Canada... E36 M3 even Cuba.. They all have a better infant mortality rate.
How many of those healthcare systems are insolvent? Yes, they may do some things better but the total system is a drain on their economies.
Speaking of France, I heard that under their system if you are in a coma for one week they pull the plug. No doctors consultation, nothing.
ignorant wrote:MrJoshua wrote:It's not a study.. those statistics are published every year. Propose an alternative that is as widely accepted as infant mortality rate. How about life expectancy at birth? https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html?countryCode=xx&rankAnchorRow=#xx where do we rank there? </blockquote They do not call the statistic "Quality of Healthcare" for a good reason. Do you honestly feel you can make direct cause effect correlations across populations so easily?ignorant wrote:It is a good measure, but like all statistics it is highly influenced by the sample population. You have taken a simple one dimensional statistic where we are behind several other countries by less than 1.5/1,0000 and called it overwhelming support of your OPINION. Is 1.5/1,000 even a statistically significant measure in that study?MrJoshua wrote: Wealth and excess cause most of our health problems. That and our desire to put off childbirth until we are in our 30's. Higher infant mortality rates can more likely be attributed to late life pregnancy, diabetes, drugs, obesity, prescription drug interactions, etc..., than quality of health care.not according to the CIA. It's the statistic that is available and recognized as a good barometer of the health of a nation. If you don't go by that statistic.. then how else would you judge our overall health care? Obesity rate? I'd call that a personal choice and not an indicator of our health care system.
Life expectancy at birth-hmmm, suicide, murder, car accidents, etc...
merely using those stats for what they are.. barometers.
It's been said in this thread that we have the best care in the world. Ok... My question is this... If we have the best care in the world, then why aren't we at the top of those stats?
ignorant wrote: merely using those stats for what they are.. barometers. It's been said in this thread that we have the best care in the world. Ok... My question is this... If we have the best care in the world, then why aren't we at the top of those stats?
McDonalds
ignorant wrote: merely using those stats for what they are.. barometers. It's been said in this thread that we have the best care in the world. Ok... My question is this... If we have the best care in the world, then why aren't we at the top of those stats?
No one is proposing making healthcare better-just mandatory that it is paid for by health insurance.
Our plumbing system and clean water are better health care than 80% of the world will ever see.
No E36 M3.
MrJoshua wrote: Do you honestly feel you can make direct cause effect correlations across populations so easily?
Dunno.. The central intellgence agency sure believes so..
MrJoshua wrote:ignorant wrote: merely using those stats for what they are.. barometers. It's been said in this thread that we have the best care in the world. Ok... My question is this... If we have the best care in the world, then why aren't we at the top of those stats?No one is proposing making healthcare better-just mandatory that it is paid for by health insurance.
Right.. but here's the converse. People are also saying that socailized medicene is horrible and does not work. I don't think thats exacty true based upon the numbers.
If you got other numbers, feel free to share.
RX Reven' wrote: I’m afraid the improvements will have to wait…the president has been disingenuous at many levels and as a result, I, along with many others, won’t support him on this.
From the past few presidents that I have paid attention to (I was 5 when Clinton was elected), it seems like just about 50% of the population thinks that everything that comes out of a president's mouth is bullE36 M3. Will there ever be a time when the country will agree on a healthcare plan across party lines? The healthcare "debate" seemed to boil down to partisan politics before concessions could even be made.
Here's democracy in action:
Side one: "Check out this new program!"
Other side: "I haven't really looked at it yet but IT'S WRONG!"
Side one: "What do you suggest as an alternative?"
Other side: "Whatever that one is not!"
ignorant wrote:MrJoshua wrote: Do you honestly feel you can make direct cause effect correlations across populations so easily?Dunno.. The central intellgence agency sure believes so..
No-they do not say those stats indicate quality of healthcare.
MrJoshua wrote: Something to keep Iggy busy (picking apart)
Excellent.
MrJoshua wrote:ignorant wrote:No-they do not say those stats indicate quality of healthcare.MrJoshua wrote: Do you honestly feel you can make direct cause effect correlations across populations so easily?Dunno.. The central intellgence agency sure believes so..
Thats a great file you uploaded.. The problem is that you're breaking the overall population into such minute subsets that they cannot be used as a representative population. It's great that american women have a 65% chance to live 5 years after a cancer diagnosis vs 56% of european women. That's great. Now.. What about all those who don't get cancer?
I'm using internationally recognized stats that at a glance give you an idea of the overall health of a nation vs others. what you've provided is some good data showing we have good care in some very specific cases.. That's wonderful. I was merely trying to show that the countries with health care systems that "fail" all of the time. But.. We're at the point where we want to debate the satistical signifigance of the infant mortality rate. That is sad. Because as long as I've been alive thats the statistic to use for OVERALL HEALTH.
Here's my argument ready..
Socialized medicine doesn't fail all of the time, it has some successes.
Our health care system can be improved.
This debate is just getting sad.
seacrest out.
Our medical system has some successes and doesn't fail all of the time. Our health care system can be improved. Forcing all of us to pay for health insurance does not fix the problems that need to be improved.
Infant mortality rate is very very important. Of course it is. With less than 1.5/1000 difference between our infant mortality rate you HAVE to argue statistical significance. You are proposing we enact a national program that will be larger than Social Security based on the ALARMING statistics that we have a higher infant mortality rate when the populations are far from standardized.
Show me that what is proposed is actually going to fix the problems instead of just "Change" things.
triumph7 wrote: My interpretation of the term "general welfare" is based not only on the definitions of the words but the fact that it predates any government welfare system.
So it is your OPINION that General Welfare does not cover what we have now, not any facts or any papers written. Which is just as valid as my opinion that General Welfare DOES cover things to take care of the general public. Just as the EPA cleans the air and water for our health, we can cover healthcare.
I also don't consider private insurance to be "sharing" my healthcare dollars. I am purchasing a service from a company that says if I am sick or injured they will pay an agreed portion of the cost.
You may want to look how insurance works. It's a bet, where you pay into a great big pool, and if the company wins, and you don't use it, they get to keep it and use it for other customers or profit. If they loose, and you get sick, then if your costs outweigh your payments, then the rest of the customers pay for your treatment. That's how insurance works.
You do share your money with your fellow insurance holders, since most people never spend the money that they contribute to the plan. Or, in many cases in the US- you never actually see that money, since it was numbers on a page that goes from your employer to the insurance comapny.
How else does said company make enough money to cover all their custmers (besides denying coverage)?
Duke wrote:alfadriver wrote: So providing for a safe environment does not include healthcare? How is it a choice that I get sick? Where did I decide that I would get run over while walking on a sidewalk? What bad choice did I make when someone brings back a preventable disease while serving our country overseas and I get it? How do I fail that my parents gave me the genetic pre-disposition to some curable disease?You do not have any RIGHT whatsoever to be protected from the vagaries of life. You only have the right to protection from having your rights directly infringed by other people. That's what the government is supposed to protect you from (including from itself). The "government" doesn't owe me a job, education, food, clothing, shelter, health, or happiness. It owes me protection against being attacked, robbed, or defrauded. C'est tout. I don't have a problem with that.
I never said it was a right. But that Congress does have the Constitutional powers to levey taxes for the General Welfare, therefore, to cover more of my fellow Americans, they can make sure that we all share in this burden.
I also don't have the RIGHT to national defence (sic), but I get it, also as laid out in the Consititiution, I don't have the RIGHT to schools, roads, utilities, etc etc etc- and we manage to share those, too.
It's the part where we get everyone on equal footing, so that they can make a better attempt at living the American Dream. If I didn't have to worry about healthcare, then perhaps I would start my own business, and hire people who could help my community grow. Ever think how many people stayed with crappy jobs just to keep the heathcare benefit?
"Provide for the common defence" pretty much indicates that you have the right to be defended.
You'll need to log in to post.
