Universal Health Care...

[SilentSnow 1]

Maybe, but I'd like to think armed revolution is more fair and has better results.

Let's ignore for a second that armed revolutions have a terrible history of success(and that you might be joking*). I don't think an armed revolution would be necessary. Maybe I don't hang around moderates enough, but it seems like a majority of both liberals and conservatives would be happier living in separate countries. The geography is simple enough that it would work. Liberals get both coasts, Conservatives get everything else. That probably isn't happening for a while yet, but an extreme version of state's rights would be a more feasible compromise. The problem is that republicans are strongly opposed to state's rights whenever a "liberal" law is at stake. Democrats don't seem to care enough about state's rights in general to make many significant changes from the current status quo. *With all the insane political opinions out there, I don't know if there is a such thing as political jokes any more.

[SilentSnow 1]

Any good slogans for this graph, in case "just say no- to everything" doesn't get the GOP the traction on the health care debate they are looking for? "Get rich or die""But how many guns do they have?""HMOs- the only death panel we need" "At least someone's getting rich""We all have to die sometime. Who gives a damn how broke you are when you do?""Good thing you all suck at math"

[85suited 0]

To use the existing WHO rankings to justify more government involvement in health care is to engage in circular reasoning because the rankings are designed in a manner that favors greater government involvement.Thank you CATOThey dissect your graph here..http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

[Jeepster80125 0]

To use the existing WHO rankings to justify more government involvement in health care is to engage in circular reasoning because the rankings are designed in a manner that favors greater government involvement.Thank you CATOThey dissect your graph here..http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

I think that's a hit n run poster.I'd like to see a rebuttal though.

[SilentSnow 1]

To use the existing WHO rankings to justify more government involvement in health care is to engage in circular reasoning because the rankings are designed in a manner that favors greater government involvement.Thank you CATOThey dissect your graph here..http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

Well actually they don't dispute it. My graph does not show the WHO health rankings. It shows per capita health care spending and life expectancy numbers, which are not disputed by anyone. What your link refers to is that on that study the WHO ranked the US 37th in health care quality, which would basically make them last among industrialized countries. The Cato institute prefers to rank them 15th using their criteria, which would make them average among industrialized countries. Even if you make the questionable assumption that the Cato intstitute is entirely right, then the US health care system would still be a disaster in terms of cost vs benefits. You can pick any health care number you want and it will show the following--The US spends over twice as much per capita on health care as other industrialized countries.-The health statistics in these countries are either better than in the US or on the same level, depending on exactly what criteria you pick.-The US is pretty much the only industrialized country without a government run universal health care system. All of your talk about the details of this health care plan is irrelevant until you address these facts and explain why a system that works significantly better in the rest of the industrialized world should not be used here. For all the complaining about the "Obama" health plan it still does not use the single payer model that is in near universal use among OECD countries.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

Well actually they don't dispute it. My graph does not show the WHO health rankings. It shows per capita health care spending and life expectancy numbers, which are not disputed by anyone.

Except they are, and it's been explained on here dozens of times why.

[SilentSnow 1]

Except they are, and it's been explained on here dozens of times why.

I doubt that. Feel free to link to a post that explains why the universally accepted health care spending numbers are completely wrong, and that basic life expectancy numbers are also. Even in the Cato report just cited they acknowledge that the US health care system is much more expensive.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

or, you know, read the ****ing thread.you're setting up a giant straw man in a way that the president has been doing for a year and a half. yes, costs are an issue. costs are the main issue. costs are the issue the right actually wants to address. forcing people to buy care or moving to single payor doesn't actually reduce costs unless you impose harsh rationing, and it has tons of unintended consequences. life expectancy is a horrible analog for the health of a nation. even if it was, life expectancy numbers reported by other countries versus the US aren't a homogenous comparison because many countries with socialized medicine dont' count premature babies who don't make it in their totals. we do.now shut the **** up troll.

[SilentSnow 1]

or, you know, read the ****ing thread.you're setting up a giant straw man in a way that the president has been doing for a year and a half. yes, costs are an issue. costs are the main issue. costs are the issue the right actually wants to address. forcing people to buy care or moving to single payor doesn't actually reduce costs unless you impose harsh rationing, and it has tons of unintended consequences. life expectancy is a horrible analog for the health of a nation. even if it was, life expectancy numbers reported by other countries versus the US aren't a homogenous comparison because many countries with socialized medicine dont' count premature babies who don't make it in their totals. we do.now shut the **** up troll.

I don't have to read the entire thread to know it is unlikely that you guys discussed the relevant issues. If you addressed these points dozens of times then it should be extremely easy to link to a post. The republicans want to address costs, but they want to completely ignore the fact that costs are much lower in every other OECD country. First of all, it is not a horrible analog. Adjust for premature babies and the numbers would be almost exactly the same. But if you don't want to use that number then pick any other basic health statistic. They aren't going to be much different.I represent the opinion of most of the civilized world. You represent the opinion of a few biased and ignorant posters on a poker message board. Calling me a troll is just pathetic.

[FCP Bob 1,321]

now shut the **** up troll.

. Calling me a troll is just pathetic.

You are far too young to be growing into the angry old man.There is nothing troll like what so ever in SilentSnow's posting here.I'll address one point in your argument and in Canada's case a huge part of the reason we spend less on health care is that our single payer system is far far far less bureaucratic and more efficient than the current American system precisely because it's a single payer system. We have many many faults in our system but we waste far less on bureaucratic paperwork than the American system.

[FCP Bob 1,321]

life expectancy is a horrible analog for the health of a nation. even if it was, life expectancy numbers reported by other countries versus the US aren't a homogenous comparison because many countries with socialized medicine dont' count premature babies who don't make it in their totals. we do.

I've asked this before because this point has been brought up by a few people as being a fact but I've yet to see a link to a study that shows this to actually be true. I may have missed it but I've asked a couple times I think and nobody has shown me one.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

There is nothing troll like what so ever in SilentSnow's posting here.

I think it's this exchange that annoys people who have had reasonable discussions on here:

My graph shows per capita health care spending and life expectancy numbers, which are not disputed by anyone.

Except they are, and it's been explained on here dozens of times why.

I doubt that.

I didn't include the following since it occurred after the troll name-calling, but I think we can see why this sort of attitude isn't going to generate any real discussion:

I don't have to read the entire thread to know it is unlikely that you guys discussed the relevant issues.

[FCP Bob 1,321]

I think it's this exchange that annoys people who have had reasonable discussions on here:I didn't include the following since it occurred after the troll name-calling, but I think we can see why this sort of attitude isn't going to generate any real discussion:

You have a point but going to the stfu after somebody has explained their position even if they are being a bit onesided in how they are discussing things might be a bit over the top. Especially considering the number of really biased posts that are made on issues in the forum.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

You are far too young to be growing into the angry old man.There is nothing troll like what so ever in SilentSnow's posting here.I'll address one point in your argument and in Canada's case a huge part of the reason we spend less on health care is that our single payer system is far far far less bureaucratic and more efficient than the current American system precisely because it's a single payer system. We have many many faults in our system but we waste far less on bureaucratic paperwork than the American system.

I've just lost patience with people who show up out of the blue, post 1 out of context graph or statement after over 1,000 posts of discussion and act like the discussion should be over. Oh, health care is expensive in america! The only solution is to be Europe! I 100% agree with the bolded. The more you streamline and standardize any process, the cheaper it becomes. Based on the 2,000+ page health care law, I think that's not the direction washington has any intention of heading.The best I can do on the premature babies thing is cite henry I'm afraid. I'm happy to stop using it as an argument if no one can find the backup. It doesn't really change that life expectancy is a horrible analog for the effectiveness of a health care system. Diet, decentralization (causing people to drive rather than walk), culture, and tons of other factors play at least equally important roles in life expectency.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Thought this was interesting, for whatever it's worth:From here

[SilentSnow 1]

Thought this was interesting, for whatever it's worth:From here

So if these numbers are correct, then you could say that US citizens have slightly better health numbers from 65 on. But considering that US citizens that are 65+ have government health care(Medicare), then that is hardly an effective point in favor of the rest of the US system. It also doesn't mention how much more they might be paying to get those similar results.

[SilentSnow 1]

I think it's this exchange that annoys people who have had reasonable discussions on here:I didn't include the following since it occurred after the troll name-calling, but I think we can see why this sort of attitude isn't going to generate any real discussion:

I suppose I could have left out the political slogans(I guess humor is only funny if someone agrees with you), but the rest of my posts were informative and inoffensive.I did read through the last few pages of the thread and my points were not being mentioned. There is no point talking about the details unless you talk about the big picture first. My posts were trying to show the broader view.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

So if these numbers are correct, then you could say that US citizens have slightly better health numbers from 65 on. But considering that US citizens that are 65+ have government health care(Medicare), then that is hardly an effective point in favor of the rest of the US system. It also doesn't mention how much more they might be paying to get those similar results.

The "for whatever it's worth" part was my way of saying I wasn't trying to present the data as evidence of anything in particular.

[dapokerbum 0]

I suppose I could have left out the political slogans(I guess humor is only funny if someone agrees with you), but the rest of my posts were informative and inoffensive.I did read through the last few pages of the thread and my points were not being mentioned. There is no point talking about the details unless you talk about the big picture first. My posts were trying to show the broader view.

Once, I read through the last few pages of a book but there was no mention of what I was looking for so I put one star on Amazon and said the book was pointless ...

[Jeepster80125 0]

I don't have to read the entire thread to know it is unlikely that you guys discussed the relevant issues. If you addressed these points dozens of times then it should be extremely easy to link to a post. The republicans want to address costs, but they want to completely ignore the fact that costs are much lower in every other OECD country. First of all, it is not a horrible analog. Adjust for premature babies and the numbers would be almost exactly the same. But if you don't want to use that number then pick any other basic health statistic. They aren't going to be much different.I represent the opinion of most of the civilized world. You represent the opinion of a few biased and ignorant posters on a poker message board. Calling me a troll is just pathetic.

If you'd read this thread or participate in an extended discussion instead of hear and there, you'd come to realize that NC is actually one of the more knowledgeable people in this thread. Weird that someone with actual experience comment on what's going on.Take myself as another example. I deal with health insurance every day, which is why I feel like being an active participant in this thread/discussion. Where do you come from? What experience do you have in these types of matters? You see, the people who you are calling biased and ignorant, are actually the ones you should be engaging and talking to, not resorting to name calling. And you aren't the only one who has brought up your points. I'm far too lazy to search the thread. It's a good read for info on the subject at hand.

[hblask 1]

Let's ignore for a second that armed revolutions have a terrible history of success(and that you might be joking*). I don't think an armed revolution would be necessary. Maybe I don't hang around moderates enough, but it seems like a majority of both liberals and conservatives would be happier living in separate countries. The geography is simple enough that it would work. Liberals get both coasts, Conservatives get everything else. That probably isn't happening for a while yet, but an extreme version of state's rights would be a more feasible compromise. The problem is that republicans are strongly opposed to state's rights whenever a "liberal" law is at stake. Democrats don't seem to care enough about state's rights in general to make many significant changes from the current status quo. *With all the insane political opinions out there, I don't know if there is a such thing as political jokes any more.

Yeah, I wonder if we are moving that way. The problem is if I had to pick between a country run by Bush-Romney Republicans or Obama-Pelosi Democrats, I'd probably just move to Ireland.And yes, I was joking.

[SweetDee 0]

Once, I read through the last few pages of a book but there was no mention of what I was looking for so I put one star on Amazon and said the book was pointless ...

Was it Helmuths book?

[hblask 1]

Any good slogans for this graph, in case "just say no- to everything" doesn't get the GOP the traction on the health care debate they are looking for?

How about: "Socialism: free riding on America's R&D".OK, so your graph takes two numbers out of context, and tries to make a point. So many flaws, as have been addressed in this thread, but I guess I can't expect anyone to read a thread this long. And you can't expect anyone to go back and look through it to prove it's been discussed. If you want to discuss health care, and haven't read this thread, you are missing a lot. Of all the places on the internet, this thread has some of the best discussion I've seen.Anyway, on to your graph:1. As I've pointed out, the US pays the R&D for all the socialized countries. Those countries get most devices and procedures 18 months to two years later. That's soon enough to not show major differences in care, but late enough to save a bundle. The world should be getting on their knees and kissing our feet for footing the bill for them. Something like 85% of all medical advances, 95% if you just count pharmaceuticals, comes from the US. We pay for it.2. Per capita spending is a ridiculous measure for comparison. We have higher per capita spending on iPhones than the rest of the world. Do we have an iPhone crisis? We spend more on video games, fast food, and lots of things. Does that make it a crisis? Of course not. Yet for some reason, people think it is a valid measure for heatlh care. But if you are going to use it, phrase the statement correctly: "A rich country that gives people free choice spends more on medical care than a country in which people are not given a choice and purchase decisions are rationed by central planners." Seems to me that that's a pretty serious indictment of the flaws of socialized medicine, not a benefit.3. The longevity statistics are meaningless out of context. For example, we have lots of gang violence. If someone dies of a gunshot to the head, is that a fault of the medical system? Of course not, but it counts the same in the statistics. We have lots of people riding cycles without helmets, lots of people eating bacon. We have lots of racial diversity. Basically, we are fat rich slobs with a diverse genetic background. If you adjust for those things, which are not affected by quality of medical care, then US longevity is tops in the world.4. There are several more serious flaws, but I'm tired of typing.It's easy to lie with statistics if you drop context. This graph is exhibit A.

[hblask 1]

I've asked this before because this point has been brought up by a few people as being a fact but I've yet to see a link to a study that shows this to actually be true. I may have missed it but I've asked a couple times I think and nobody has shown me one.

I used to make this point, but upon further research it seems that nobody knows. It used to be really unbalanced in the way "infant mortality" was reported, with the US reporting everything and other countries basically reporting a fraction. Since then there has been a push for standardized reporting, but nobody knows if it's working. It looks close enough so that in most countries it is comparable, but it is likely some countries or hospitals are lying a lot.On the other hand, if you adjust for those mysterious "other" factors, the US bubbles to the top again. For example, fat women have higher infant mortality than fit women. The US is a fat, fat nation. So if you adjust for just that one factor, maternal birthweight, the US has the lowest infant mortality rate. If you adjust for other things, like drug use and race, the US does even better. And I could probably find a study on this one if pushed, but I'm feeling lazy.

[FCP Bob 1,321]

How about: "Socialism: free riding on America's R&D".OK, so your graph takes two numbers out of context, and tries to make a point. So many flaws, as have been addressed in this thread, but I guess I can't expect anyone to read a thread this long. And you can't expect anyone to go back and look through it to prove it's been discussed. If you want to discuss health care, and haven't read this thread, you are missing a lot. Of all the places on the internet, this thread has some of the best discussion I've seen.Anyway, on to your graph:1. As I've pointed out, the US pays the R&D for all the socialized countries. Those countries get most devices and procedures 18 months to two years later. That's soon enough to not show major differences in care, but late enough to save a bundle. The world should be getting on their knees and kissing our feet for footing the bill for them. Something like 85% of all medical advances, 95% if you just count pharmaceuticals, comes from the US. We pay for it.

Just a quick google search will bring into question your first point. The link has an interesting discussion and I'm only quoting one part of it.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ontrolling.html

Marcia Angell Former editor in chief, The New England Journal of Medicine[The pharmaceutical companies'] R&D costs are very high, in absolute terms. But they're quite small relative to their other expenditures and profits. The drug companies spend on average, by their own figures, last year, 15 to 17 percent on R&D. And that's a lot of money. But their profits are higher. Their profits are 18.5 percent. And what's really interesting is what they spend on marketing and administration, by their own figures, is on average 35 percent. That's over twice as much as what they spend on R&D. So if they point to their R&D costs as some sort of justification for the high prices, what on earth can they say about their marketing costs, which are over twice that much? ... Companies argue it's important to keep this a largely private market to protect innovation, and that's why drug companies in other countries are less innovative. Over half of all drugs are produced here.... Almost every element of what you just said is wrong. Let's look at the big drug companies first. Of the 10 top drug companies, five are European and five are American. Their innovation is much the same. Their turnout of new drugs is much the same. Their marketing budgets are much the same. Their profits are much the same. This, in fact, is a global industry. All of them have the lion's share of their sales here, because prices are so much higher in the United States than they are in Europe and Canada. And so it's sort of good public relations to portray themselves as quintessentially American businesses. They're not. Even in countries where there are price controls, these companies are doing extremely well. So that's the first thing that's wrong with your question.The second is the implication that these are innovative businesses. They are not innovative businesses. They are giant marketing and PR machines that turn out predominantly "me too" drugs, and whose truly innovative drugs are based mainly on taxpayer-funded work.