Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
How to spin your issue: Health care
Sunday, February 28, 2010 7:00 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:Pelosi: Health care bill can be bipartisan even without GOP votes The top House Democrat appears to be signaling that her party has all but given up any hope of achieving meaningful bipartisan support for a health care reform bill. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declares in an interview airing Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union. “But let me say this,” Pelosi continues, “The bill can be bipartisan, even though the votes might not be bipartisan, because they [Republicans] have made their imprint on this.” Pelosi pointed to the fact that the final bill will, in all likelihood, not include a government-run public health insurance option, a provision vigorously opposed by congressional Republicans but supported by liberal House Democrats. Instead, Pelosi tells CNN Senior Political Correspondent Candy Crowley, Democrats have settled on insurance exchanges as a way to help contain health care costs. That compromise position, Pelosi suggested, reflects an acknowledgement of Republicans’ approach to health care reform. Reflecting a key provision of the Senate bill passed late last year, the legislative outline released by the White House last week does not include a public option. Asked about the White House’s decision to forego a provision popular with many liberals in the Democratic Party, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the administration made that decision because it did not appear that there would be sufficient votes to get the public option passed in Congress. Although some liberal Democrats in both chambers favor a public option, a substantial block of conservative Democrats in the House, known as the Blue Dogs, do not support it. In the interview, Pelosi is also quick to suggest that President Obama and congressional Democrats have gone to great lengths to give Republicans an opportunity to weigh in on health care reform notwithstanding fundamental ideological differences between the two parties. “We went into the legislative process - hundreds of hours of hearings and bill writing and all the rest - where the Republicans made their suggestions,” Pelosi tells Crowley. “We know that one of the reasons we didn’t have a bill in the fall is because the president wanted to give the Senate more time to arrive at bipartisanship in the Senate bill, which he thought might be possible then.” Pelosi added, “And so what we’ve had is the year of trying to strive for bipartisanship, as I say over 100 Republican amendments in the bill. And the Republicans placed their own bill on the floor, here in the House, which insured 3 million. Our bill insures over 30 million. So we have a different value system here.”
Sunday, February 28, 2010 8:21 AM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Sunday, February 28, 2010 11:03 AM
Quote:It is very difficult to do cross-country comparisons of the effectiveness of health care systems. They are plagued by definitional differences in statistics (is a baby born at five months gestation a neo-nate, who goes into your infant mortality statistics when he dies a few hours later, or a stillbirth, which does not?). They are heavily affected by differences in lifestyle, and ethnicity—almost no one thinks that the Japanese live so long because they have the world's finest health care system. And, as this example illustrates, many variables are but ambiguous signals of quality. A country may have longer hospital visits and more acute care because the comparison country is letting its citizens die in the street; or because the comparison country is much better at treating disease, forestalling crises and long hospital stays; or because you are paying doctors and hospitals to treat crises and provide hospital beds, and they are responding to the signal.
Quote: Details by country: UK—(Where everyone is covered, so their figures include everyone, not just those on Medicare or who can afford medical insurance): Average family premium: None; funded by taxation. Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays. What is it? The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients. How does it work? Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low; there are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a "medical home" in their GP, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system; patients must see their GP before going to a specialist. GPs, who are paid extra for keeping their patients healthy, are instrumental in preventive care, an area in which Britain is a world leader. Japan: Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half. Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income. What is it? Japan uses a "social insurance" system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can't afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector. How does it work? Japan boasts some of the best health statistics in the world, no doubt due in part to the Japanese diet and lifestyle. Unlike the U.K., there are no gatekeepers; the Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down. Germany: Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients' income. Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt. What is it? Germany, like Japan, uses a social insurance model. In fact, Germany is the birthplace of social insurance. But unlike the Japanese, who get insurance from work or are assigned to a community fund, Germans are free to buy their insurance from one of more than 200 private, nonprofit "sickness funds." As in Japan, the poor receive public assistance to pay their premiums. How does it work? Sickness funds are nonprofit and cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions; they compete with each other for members, and fund managers are paid based on the size of their enrollments. Like Japan, Germany is a single-payment system, but instead of the government negotiating the prices, the sickness funds bargain with doctors as a group. Germans can go straight to a specialist without first seeing a gatekeeper doctor, but they may pay a higher co-pay if they do. Taiwan: Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four. Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children. What is it? Taiwan adopted a "National Health Insurance" model in 1995 after studying other countries' systems. Like Japan and Germany, all citizens must have insurance, but there is only one, government-run insurer. Working people pay premiums split with their employers; others pay flat rates with government help; and some groups, like the poor and veterans, are fully subsidized. The resulting system is similar to Canada's -- and the U.S. Medicare program. How does it work? Taiwan's new health system extended insurance to the 40 percent of the population that lacked it while actually decreasing the growth of health care spending. The Taiwanese can see any doctor without a referral. Every citizen has a smart card, which is used to store his or her medical history and bill the national insurer. The system also helps public health officials monitor standards and effect policy changes nationwide. Thanks to this use of technology and the country's single insurer, Taiwan's health care system has the lowest administrative costs in the world. Switzerland: Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens. Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year. What is it? The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany, voted in by a national referendum in 1994. Switzerland didn't have far to go to achieve universal coverage; 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. All citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can't afford the premiums. How does it work? The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government.
Quote:We spend more of our Gross Domestic Product on health care (15.3% at last count) than any other nation. However, we have a large number of Americans without either social insurance or private health insurance coverage (16%). While performing well on a number of key health and prevention measures, the U.S. does not perform as well on a number of other health outcomes and system measures as many other western industrialized nations. In contrast, European nations with various approaches all manage to offer universal health care coverage at lower cost and often with better collective results for their citizens.
Quote:Recent economic trends have resulted in a growing disparity in health care coverage and affordability. A study by the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) identified three divergent categories of workers that are emerging from trends in health care coverage and income growth. The top-income category (earning on average $210,100 annually) has enjoyed rising incomes and growing employer-paid health care benefits, which have made their out-of-pocket spending on health care a relatively small and affordable portion of total spending. The higher-middle-income category (earning an average of $84,800 annually) and the lower-middle-income group (earning on average $41,500), have also seen increasing benefits and incomes—but at a much slower rate, making the uncovered portion of their health care costs ever-more expensive. In the bottom-income category (earning an average of $14,800 a year), incomes have been stagnant, and their employers are less likely to pay for their health insurance. This group is finding any health care difficult, if not impossible, to afford.
Sunday, February 28, 2010 1:33 PM
MAGONSDAUGHTER
Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:06 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: The World Health Organisation which ranks healthcare systems, rates the US far down the scale, 37th I believe, below the UK, Canada and Australia. It also ranks life expectancy, where the US falls below the above countries as well.
Sunday, February 28, 2010 3:56 PM
Sunday, February 28, 2010 4:47 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Magonsdaughter: At least you can go to their website and examine their methodology for their rankings, unlike your stats which seemed to have been plucked out of someone's arse.
Quote: And if as you say, WHO is simply the puppet of the UN then the rankings would reflect the power held in the UN, which it clearly does not.
Sunday, February 28, 2010 5:15 PM
Sunday, February 28, 2010 5:30 PM
Sunday, February 28, 2010 5:59 PM
Sunday, February 28, 2010 6:04 PM
KWICKO
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)
Sunday, February 28, 2010 6:25 PM
CHRISISALL
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: He can't hear facts, won't acknowledge them, and refuses to be reasoned with.
Monday, March 1, 2010 1:06 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Remember, Magons, when it comes to the UN, the ONLY thing Americans want to hear from them is their approval for our illegal invasions of other nations. You'd do well to just ignore the Rappy. He can't hear facts, won't acknowledge them, and refuses to be reasoned with.
Monday, March 1, 2010 3:08 AM
Quote:On July 31, 2009, an editorial at IBD, criticizing Barack Obama's healthcare plans, claimed that Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."[7] As Hawking was born and has always lived in the United Kingdom, and receives his medical care from the British National Health Service, the editorial was widely criticized for its inaccuracy.[6][8][9] The online version of the editorial was later corrected to remove the argument.[10] Hawking responded to the editorial by saying: "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS... I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived."[11]
Monday, March 1, 2010 4:32 AM
Monday, March 1, 2010 4:46 AM
Quote: U.S. cancer survival rates at 5 years are among the top in TWO types of cancer. For all others, you're worse off here than is some other nations. http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/a-false-appeal-to-womens-fears/ WebMD backs this up with some numbers of its own, which also refute your claims. http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where you live plays a role in cancer survival, according to a new study that shows the U.S., Japan, and France recorded the highest survival rates among 31 nations for four types of cancer. Algeria had the lowest survival rates for all four cancers. "This is the first direct comparison of so many countries as far as I am aware," says Michel Coleman, MD, a professor of epidemiology and vital statistics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the study's lead author. While Coleman and other epidemiologists have long known that cancer survival rates vary country by country, and even within a country, the study lends hard numbers to the fact. Still, there were surprises. "I think the surprises were that the range in global survival is really quite wide," Coleman tells WebMD. "Survival in the USA is high on a global scale but varies quite widely among individual states as well as between blacks and whites within the USA," he tells WebMD. Cancer Survival by Country Coleman and colleagues drew on data from nearly 2 million cancer patients, ages 15 to 99, whose medical information was entered into 101 population-based cancer registries in 31 countries. The patients had been diagnosed with one of four cancers: breast, colon, rectum, or prostate cancers during the years 1990-1994. They were followed up to 1999, with the researchers comparing five-year survival rates. The highest survival rates were found in the U.S. for breast and prostate cancer, in Japan for colon and rectal cancers in men, and in France for colon and rectal cancers in women, Coleman's team reports. In Canada and Australia, survival was also high for most cancers. The lowest cancer survival rates for all four cancers were found in Algeria. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, March 1, 2010 4:47 AM
AGENTROUKA
Monday, March 1, 2010 5:30 AM
Monday, March 1, 2010 6:38 AM
PIZMOBEACH
... fully loaded, safety off...
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Honest, sincere and informed folks know better.
Monday, March 1, 2010 7:49 AM
Quote:I think the mistake that many Americans seem to make is thinking that all countries that offer public health, offer the same type of system. In fact the systems vary widely - from public health only, to hybrid systems.
Quote:US health system is a fabulous one if you can afford top of the range health insurance, and pretty crappy if you are low on the income scale. I think that is the difference, the lack of equity in the system
Quote: If you're so hard up on who did the research and the methodology, go find it your self. You didn't even know that the W.H.O. was a branch of the U.N., so I'm not really sensing any great intellectual well spring on your part.
Quote:I'm presenting is factual information, and all you're doing is offering up petty insults and empty personal opinions.
Quote: there was an attempt to spin the motivation of the IBD's EDITORIAL page, but not so much on the specific date which I offered.
Quote:our Health Care costs too much, covers too few, and needs a major enema.
Monday, March 1, 2010 9:07 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Well, virtually every post since mine ignores things I already showed, and cited, in my (admittedly long) post. Would be helpful if people tried to wend their way through the following, as I’m responding to what was posted after my material debating the initial facts. Quote:I think the mistake that many Americans seem to make is thinking that all countries that offer public health, offer the same type of system. In fact the systems vary widely - from public health only, to hybrid systems.Yes, Magon, I cited that above, country by country, and there’s more to it as well, such as lifestyle, place, etc., which define health care outcomes.Quote:US health system is a fabulous one if you can afford top of the range health insurance, and pretty crappy if you are low on the income scale. I think that is the difference, the lack of equity in the systemThat is an important point which was addressed above (with cite), and another valid point few take into consideration is that the statistics previously posted do not take into account those who don’t HAVE health insurance, as far as we know, as well as the fact that the two sets of figures about the elderly refer to people ON MEDICARE...all the previously-posted statistics are therefore questionable, given those facts. As to the initial figures; we've repeated that NO CITE was provided, it merely says it’s from Investor’s Daily's editorial page, and, as I pointed out and Magon mentioned, we can’t find out the methodology used unless we can look at the cite ourselves. Given the argument is made that the WHO is slanted and Wikipedia irrelevant, one might wonder if Investors Daily is slanted, as it is written with INVESTORS as its market, investors being the ones who invest in for-profit insurance companies.
Quote: Interestingly, the personal attacks BEGAN with that wind, which first postedQuote: If you're so hard up on who did the research and the methodology, go find it your self. You didn't even know that the W.H.O. was a branch of the U.N., so I'm not really sensing any great intellectual well spring on your part.So much forQuote:I'm presenting is factual information, and all you're doing is offering up petty insults and empty personal opinions.In fact, I posted tons of factual information from different cites, as did Magon and Mike, and the personal sniping began with the above-quoted post. All that was offered prior to my reply was a list of numbers with no cite except to say it was from IBD (also, just for fun, initials standing for “irritable bowl disorder”). Everyone has provided cites with their facts except the initial poster, who now says “look it up yourself” along with whines about character assassination and opinions, which it began itself.
Quote: Saying Wikipedia “is what it is” belies the fact that they have cites, as well, to back up their information. Agent is right in that all have presented serious responses and requested the citation on the initial figures posted; none has been forthcoming and none of those debating those figures BEGAN the personal sniping. As to Quote: there was an attempt to spin the motivation of the IBD's EDITORIAL page, but not so much on the specific date which I offered.That is incorrect. The specific data (I assume that’s what’s meant) has been questioned, as was the motivation of IBD, but contrary facts have been presented, with citations.
Quote: Yes, I bumped across the WHO ranking, and we are 37th, that’s correct. Disagreement with the WHO might be legitimate, but they being an offshoot of the UN, we tend to have the most power in the UN, so it’s questionable they could rank us there unless they had statistics to prove it. Also, THEIR methodology is easily discerned by going to the cite. The influence in the UN is most strongly held by the US, it’s been that way for years; they disagreed with us about the wars, but other than that our influence is huge and has been almost since it’s inception. Nonetheless, dismissing the WHO and Wikipedia while only offering one quote from an IBD editorial lacks credibility.
Quote: I passed by the Hawkings quote in citing material, because I thought everyone knew about that already; it was such a joke the media made fun of it over and over. Given IT was provided by IBD, it indicates the possibility that their material might well be methodologically lacking, or their intent slanted. One bunch of figures does not override everything else.
Quote: The basic pertinent facts are what Pizmo says:Quote:our Health Care costs too much, covers too few, and needs a major enema.
Monday, March 1, 2010 9:26 AM
HERO
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: I honestly and sincerely know that our Health Care costs too much, covers too few, and needs a major enema.
Monday, March 1, 2010 9:27 AM
Monday, March 1, 2010 1:03 PM
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Honest, sincere and informed folks know better. I honestly and sincerely know that our Health Care costs too much, covers too few, and needs a major enema.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 4:14 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: I'll cede that to ya, but Gov't take over of healthcare ? Really? Sorry, not the answer we're looking for. We can do better.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 6:03 AM
Quote:Originally posted by pizmobeach: But, since the Reps have only shown a willingness to obstruct I cross them off the list. /B]
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 7:01 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 7:55 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Paul Ryan has come out looking like the shiny knight in all this, and the Dems just want to throw mud on the entire GOP by lying and saying they didn't offer any constructive input.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 11:06 AM
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 12:31 PM
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 12:51 PM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Rappy, you have not addressed the biggest spin of all, which Niki has brought up twice already (and which you continue to slide around): the stats that you cite entirely ignore those who have NO INSURANCE AT ALL. And since that makes up about 15% of the USA population, that's a huge chunk of cherry-picking! Not that it's new for you... you SPECIALIZE in cherry -picking.
Quote: Plus, your opinion that WHO/UN stats are biased is totally unfounded. I agree with Kwicko- your view of the UN is entirely whimsical: It's an important, law-setting world authority.... but only when you think it authorizes something that we want... like, oh, I dunno... invading other nations on specious pretexts. Other than that, it's a feckless, miserable little pit of international spite?
Quote: But, for your information (not that you're really looking for the truth... you never do, you just like to cherry pick a few factoids here and there to bolster your opinion) the outcomes of US healthcare are rated by organizations OTHER THAN WHO, and we STILL come out low, especially considering we sink so much more money into it than anyone else.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 1:00 PM
RUE
I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 1:03 PM
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 1:05 PM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: As for that foul smelling gust of hot air, I think it's a fart. *************************************************************** Silence is consent.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 1:18 PM
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 1:19 PM
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 3:54 PM
Quote:I see no point in even discussing anything w/ you. Anyone so consumed w/ pettiness and filled w/ nonsensical propaganda, has no interest in honest or sincere debate. Maybe, if you'd drop the erroneous insults, and stick to the facts, some dialog could be achieved.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 4:54 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Quote:Originally posted by rue: However, the short reason (if you don't want to read the whole article) is that wherever the providers are reimbursed for services they do more, whether or not it is appropriate, or risky. They perform more special diagnostic tests like MRIs, bring in more specialists, and perform more treatments and surgeries, Worse, they parse and divvy up the information without necessarily finding out what, of all that, the patient actually NEEDS - or not. If it were the financial business it would be called churning, which is an obvious tactic to put more money into the pockets of the people who are doing it - without actually delivering a result for the client.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 5:39 PM
Quote:Originally posted by Kwicko: Quote:I see no point in even discussing anything w/ you. Anyone so consumed w/ pettiness and filled w/ nonsensical propaganda, has no interest in honest or sincere debate. Maybe, if you'd drop the erroneous insults, and stick to the facts, some dialog could be achieved. Rappy has summed up my feelings towards him perfectly, which is why I have no desire to waste my time trying to discuss things with him. He is a small-minded child, and should be treated as such.
Tuesday, March 2, 2010 8:18 PM
Quote:I've presented info, and instead of dealing w/the specifics, you harp on what I've NOT addressed ? Seems a recipe for perpetually talking past each other.
Quote:Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer...
Quote: OF THOSE PEOPLE WITH INSURANCE ... Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months
Quote:Percentage of seniors ON MEDICARE- A GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE IN THE USA needing hip replacement who received it within six months
Quote:The U.N. is a joke, and while it occasionally does do 'SOME' good, the very foundation of this outfit is rotten to the core. It has no interest in promoting freedom. It's a corrupt outfit which is run by a gang of thugs and dictators.
Quote:As for the war in Iraq, the UN's approval for the war, despite its outright hostile attitude towards the U.S., only proves my case, that Iraq was so far off the reservation, so far out of step w/ the rest of the world that EVEN the United Nations felt compelled to agree.
Quote: I see no point in even discussing anything w/ you. Anyone so consumed w/ pettiness and filled w/ nonsensical propaganda, has no interest in honest or sincere debate.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 6:20 AM
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 6:34 AM
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 6:44 AM
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 6:46 AM
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 6:52 AM
Quote:Investor's Daily is comparing apples to oranges, and then apples to bananas.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 7:48 AM
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 7:49 AM
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 7:53 AM
Quote:Originally posted by rue: "When there's no profit motive - for either workers or suppliers - quality can go straight to hell." Not at all true. If you wish, I will post (again) a very long article that shows that in the US the MOST expensive health care in McAllen, Texas is the worst. While the least expensive health care at the Mayo Clinic is far better. However, the short reason (if you don't want to read the whole article) is that wherever the providers are reimbursed for services they do more, whether or not it is appropriate, or risky. They perform more special diagnostic tests like MRIs, bring in more specialists, and perform more treatments and surgeries, Worse, they parse and divvy up the information without necessarily finding out what, of all that, the patient actually NEEDS - or not. If it were the financial business it would be called churning, which is an obvious tactic to put more money into the pockets of the people who are doing it - without actually delivering a result for the client.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010 7:58 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Actually, Piz, "the ability and the resources to purchase health insurance" could mean the public option as well, since it's PURCHASED. What's missing is that, whatever that person said, the fact is that what the Republicans have proposed, as in subsidies for the poor, IS government-paid-for health insurance (which gives further profits to for-profit insurance companies), which is just as much "government takeover" as the public option, only the profit goes to the insurance companies.
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL