Problems With Socialized Medicine & Government Healthcare

[Meister]

how can you use different standards as the only comparison tool? these are the statistics:

How does US healthcare compare to the rest of the world? | News | guardian.co.uk

now granted these stats are a few years old, but when you have to spend more money than the rest of the world, to cover a smaller percent of your population, you know that something is broken.

we rank in the bottom half in life expectancy amongst all these nations. spends nearly twice as much per person on health care costs, and we cover less of the population as a percentage than most of the rest of the world. yeah, we have the perfect system in place. yay for capitalism!

I'll take just one example with child mortality rate. The US counts still births as part of the child mortality rate where there are other countries don't count it.
I will give you one more with life expectancy rates. There is a lot of things that come into play with this one. Traffic accidents, Guns, life style, obesity, and our diverse culture of people. The black man has a lower life expectancy than a white man, not because of different healthcare, but because they have a tendency for higher hypertention related deaths, and heart ailments. This all comes into play no matter what type of healthcare we have.

you can still take the overall average for the population and apply the argument here. we still rank lower than the rest of the world (on average) in the majority of these categories.

How are you going to quantify that to prove your point?

 

[Common Sense]

I'll take just one example with child mortality rate. The US counts still births as part of the child mortality rate where there are other countries don't count it.
I will give you one more with life expectancy rates. There is a lot of things that come into play with this one. Traffic accidents, Guns, life style, obesity, and our diverse culture of people. The black man has a lower life expectancy than a white man, not because of different healthcare, but because they have a tendency for higher hypertention related deaths, and heart ailments. This all comes into play no matter what type of healthcare we have.

you can still take the overall average for the population and apply the argument here. we still rank lower than the rest of the world (on average) in the majority of these categories.

How are you going to quantify that to prove your point?

because you are taking the average statistics of one society and comparing it to another. its that easy to compare one country to another. how does this not make sense? we arent comparing how long black live vs. whites vs. latinos vs. asians. we are comparing how long people in US live compared to other countries in the world.

thats why its called an average.

 

[Meister]

you can still take the overall average for the population and apply the argument here. we still rank lower than the rest of the world (on average) in the majority of these categories.

How are you going to quantify that to prove your point?

because you are taking the average statistics of one society and comparing it to another. its that easy to compare one country to another. how does this not make sense? we arent comparing how long black live vs. whites vs. latinos vs. asians. we are comparing how long people in US live compared to other countries in the world.

thats why its called an average.

Okay, I accept what your premise is. Having said that, CommonSense, our ranking is not going to change with healthcare reform.

 

[Common Sense]

How are you going to quantify that to prove your point?

because you are taking the average statistics of one society and comparing it to another. its that easy to compare one country to another. how does this not make sense? we arent comparing how long black live vs. whites vs. latinos vs. asians. we are comparing how long people in US live compared to other countries in the world.

thats why its called an average.

Okay, I accept what your premise is. Having said that, CommonSense, our ranking is not going to change with healthcare reform.

whether it does or it doesnt is yet to be determined.

 

[Meister]

because you are taking the average statistics of one society and comparing it to another. its that easy to compare one country to another. how does this not make sense? we arent comparing how long black live vs. whites vs. latinos vs. asians. we are comparing how long people in US live compared to other countries in the world.

thats why its called an average.

Okay, I accept what your premise is. Having said that, CommonSense, our ranking is not going to change with healthcare reform.

whether it does or it doesnt is yet to be determined.

The only way it could is by mandating our life styles to change.....drastically. More government?

 

[Christopher]

Right wingers hate single payer because nations with single payer have a lower infant mortality rate.

In wingnut world, that's a problem

In the real world, the Americans spend more for health care than anyone else in the world, and in return, we get care that ranks in the middle of the pack, in the neighborhood of third world nations like Cuba. In wingnut world, fixing this would cause "problems"

Different standards for different countries, yet Sangha would like you to believe everone is on a even playing field.

how can you use different standards as the only comparison tool? these are the statistics:

How does US healthcare compare to the rest of the world? | News | guardian.co.uk

now granted these stats are a few years old, but when you have to spend more money than the rest of the world, to cover a smaller percent of your population, you know that something is broken.

we rank in the bottom half in life expectancy amongst all these nations. spends nearly twice as much per person on health care costs, and we cover less of the population as a percentage than most of the rest of the world. yeah, we have the perfect system in place. yay for capitalism!

Please read this study as an example of one of the reasons for our rankings, particularly for life expectancy. I believe based upon this study, that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating, but that our overall unhealthy lifestyles at least partially are; there are other factors as well, based upon how statistics are reported. Here is a quote from the study:
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

The health care system could be performing exceptionally well in identifying and administering treatment for various diseases, but a country could still have poor measured health if personal health care practices were unusually deleterious. This is not a remote possibility in the United States, which had the highest level of cigarette consumption per capita in the developed world over a 50-year period ending in the mid-80’s (Forey et al. 2002). Smoking in early life has left an imprint on mortality patterns that remains visible as cohorts age (Preston and Wang 2006; Haldorsen and Grimsrud 1999). One recent study estimated that, if deaths attributable to smoking were eliminated, the ranking of US men in life expectancy at age 50 among 20 OECD countries would improve from 14th to 9th, while US women would move from 18th to 7th (Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth 2009). Recent trends in obesity are also more adverse in the United States than in other developed countries (OECD 2008; Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003).

 

[antagon]

with over 80 million covered under our existing single payer systems, it is undoubtedly one of the largest in the world. it is scaled to double in the next couple decades without an expansion of entitlement. are we even considering a solution which is remotely plausible if we venture to expand entitlement, or moreover cover the entire population through a single payer system?

why debate a total pipe-dream i say. can you support how such a system covering all americans is remotely feasible? we'll talk about desirability if you can.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean why you talk of plausibility and feasibility: political or practical implementation?

either or, really. i dont think that the largess could be burdened with such a concept which offers a promise notwithstanding the potential for conditions to change by the end of the century. who'd have thought that life expectancies would increase 30 years and that the ratio of working to retired would alter as dramatically as it has since the SS obligation was pledged last century? should we make the same mistakes of burdening government with another such obligation that narrows our capacity to change our path into the future?

what about the political end of it now that you mention it? i think you've got a real issue on your hands in trying to pass a measure which would dramatically increase governments involvement in HC while it is already struggling with reversing its path toward insolvency. the concept of the government withstanding the impact of the wars on the VHA and the impact of the baby-boomer's retirement on medicare is significant enough. adding the additional burden of an expansion of single-payer obligations sounds like a guaranteed destruction of any fiscal turnaround. voters will recognize that. the companies which offer health insurance now have been put on their feet by the government for close to 40 years. i dont think that a move to virtually eliminate them will withstand the sort of political pressure that greased the passage of the obamacare bill.

i find that approach to be the best with respect to sustainability and scalability. it works with what we have in terms of infrastructure and public/private burden. it offers a means-tested participation in government-administered healthcare recognizing that not everyone is looking for their own equivalent of medicare or medicaid when it comes to what they want or what they want to offer their employees.

there's something old-school and played out about the single payer approach. not impressed by any proceeds which you've proposed might come from it.

 

[antagon]

because you are taking the average statistics of one society and comparing it to another. its that easy to compare one country to another. how does this not make sense? we arent comparing how long black live vs. whites vs. latinos vs. asians. we are comparing how long people in US live compared to other countries in the world.

thats why its called an average.

Okay, I accept what your premise is. Having said that, CommonSense, our ranking is not going to change with healthcare reform.

whether it does or it doesnt is yet to be determined.

i dont think it serves your argument to propose solutions out one end and be naive out the other. america has healthfulness problems in serious ways. this is independent of the solutions available to them from medical care. would you contest the idea that america's poor are less healthy despite their access to free socialized care? are you so dense and to presume that has something to do with ethnicity in the face of the lifestyle choices which dominate that focus group... the cigarettes and overconsumption of shitty foods... the reticence to exercise?

pointing to health stats in other countries is the first sign of a losing argument on this topic because healthcare and health outcomes are not connected beyond those levels present in all developed nations. after there's an accessible medical infrastructure in place for emergency and natal care, the significance of coverage takes a backseat to lifestyles by and large.

 

[sangha]

Okay, I accept what your premise is. Having said that, CommonSense, our ranking is not going to change with healthcare reform.

whether it does or it doesnt is yet to be determined.

The only way it could is by mandating our life styles to change.....drastically. More government?

Whether HCR improves health care or not is completely irrelevant to the main goals of HCR which were to provide everyone with coverage, and prevent the price of care from rising too fast. HCR improves health care only in the sense that people who couldn't afford health care before will now receive health care, which is "better health care" than the "no health care" they were previously receiving.

 

[sangha]

Different standards for different countries, yet Sangha would like you to believe everone is on a even playing field.

how can you use different standards as the only comparison tool? these are the statistics:

How does US healthcare compare to the rest of the world? | News | guardian.co.uk

now granted these stats are a few years old, but when you have to spend more money than the rest of the world, to cover a smaller percent of your population, you know that something is broken.

we rank in the bottom half in life expectancy amongst all these nations. spends nearly twice as much per person on health care costs, and we cover less of the population as a percentage than most of the rest of the world. yeah, we have the perfect system in place. yay for capitalism!

Please read this study as an example of one of the reasons for our rankings, particularly for life expectancy. I believe based upon this study, that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating, but that our overall unhealthy lifestyles at least partially are; there are other factors as well, based upon how statistics are reported. Here is a quote from the study:
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

The health care system could be performing exceptionally well in identifying and administering treatment for various diseases, but a country could still have poor measured health if personal health care practices were unusually deleterious. This is not a remote possibility in the United States, which had the highest level of cigarette consumption per capita in the developed world over a 50-year period ending in the mid-80’s (Forey et al. 2002). Smoking in early life has left an imprint on mortality patterns that remains visible as cohorts age (Preston and Wang 2006; Haldorsen and Grimsrud 1999). One recent study estimated that, if deaths attributable to smoking were eliminated, the ranking of US men in life expectancy at age 50 among 20 OECD countries would improve from 14th to 9th, while US women would move from 18th to 7th (Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth 2009). Recent trends in obesity are also more adverse in the United States than in other developed countries (OECD 2008; Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003).

Life expectancy is not the only measure we do poorly on. We pay more than anyone else. We pay 50% more than the nation with the 2nd highest per capita expense.

The idea that we do so poorly in so many ways because of factors beyond our health care system defies credibility. While a health care system cant cure every condition, a competent one does not fail to respond to numerous areas of of poor performance.

 

[sangha]

Okay, I accept what your premise is. Having said that, CommonSense, our ranking is not going to change with healthcare reform.

whether it does or it doesnt is yet to be determined.

i dont think it serves your argument to propose solutions out one end and be naive out the other. america has healthfulness problems in serious ways. this is independent of the solutions available to them from medical care. would you contest the idea that america's poor are less healthy despite their access to free socialized care? are you so dense and to presume that has something to do with ethnicity in the face of the lifestyle choices which dominate that focus group... the cigarettes and overconsumption of shitty foods... the reticence to exercise?

pointing to health stats in other countries is the first sign of a losing argument on this topic because healthcare and health outcomes are not connected beyond those levels present in all developed nations. after there's an accessible medical infrastructure in place for emergency and natal care, the significance of coverage takes a backseat to lifestyles by and large.

Your notion is absurd. No sane person would argue that the health problems of america are completely beyond the reach of a competent health care system. Maybe that's why you try to back it up with the ridiculous implication that the poor are being given adequate health care.

In the real world, entire populations of americans have changed thier lifestyle choices such as diet and cigarettes because the health care system educated them about it. In wingnut world, the fact that the health care has successfully dealt with such issues in the past means that it can't possibly deal successful;y with them in the future

But you're right to describe the posting of facts as "the first sign of a losing argument". It's the first sign a wingnut is about to lose because wingnuts don't know facts. For example, this wingnut does know the fact that the international studies measured things like prenatal care and emergency care.

There's no end to the list of facts wingnuts do not know

 

[Christopher]

how can you use different standards as the only comparison tool? these are the statistics:

How does US healthcare compare to the rest of the world? | News | guardian.co.uk

now granted these stats are a few years old, but when you have to spend more money than the rest of the world, to cover a smaller percent of your population, you know that something is broken.

we rank in the bottom half in life expectancy amongst all these nations. spends nearly twice as much per person on health care costs, and we cover less of the population as a percentage than most of the rest of the world. yeah, we have the perfect system in place. yay for capitalism!

Please read this study as an example of one of the reasons for our rankings, particularly for life expectancy. I believe based upon this study, that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating, but that our overall unhealthy lifestyles at least partially are; there are other factors as well, based upon how statistics are reported. Here is a quote from the study:
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

The health care system could be performing exceptionally well in identifying and administering treatment for various diseases, but a country could still have poor measured health if personal health care practices were unusually deleterious. This is not a remote possibility in the United States, which had the highest level of cigarette consumption per capita in the developed world over a 50-year period ending in the mid-80’s (Forey et al. 2002). Smoking in early life has left an imprint on mortality patterns that remains visible as cohorts age (Preston and Wang 2006; Haldorsen and Grimsrud 1999). One recent study estimated that, if deaths attributable to smoking were eliminated, the ranking of US men in life expectancy at age 50 among 20 OECD countries would improve from 14th to 9th, while US women would move from 18th to 7th (Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth 2009). Recent trends in obesity are also more adverse in the United States than in other developed countries (OECD 2008; Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003).

Life expectancy is not the only measure we do poorly on. We pay more than anyone else. We pay 50% more than the nation with the 2nd highest per capita expense.

The idea that we do so poorly in so many ways because of factors beyond our health care system defies credibility. While a health care system cant cure every condition, a competent one does not fail to respond to numerous areas of of poor performance.

As I said, it is only one of the reasons for our low ranking. Where is the credible study that gives us the main reasons why we pay more than other countries? I haven’t seen it.

What I do know is what is driving up our costs, based upon an analysis by CBO I provided in another thread. Basically, new technology development is by far the greatest reason for increases in spending; other reasons included increases in personal income, and more access to health care spending through third party systems (Medicare and Medicaid). Basically, we spend more because we can and this increase in spending results in increases in development of new technologies, which America leads by far in money spent on development.
Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

 

[antagon]

whether it does or it doesnt is yet to be determined.

i dont think it serves your argument to propose solutions out one end and be naive out the other. america has healthfulness problems in serious ways. this is independent of the solutions available to them from medical care. would you contest the idea that america's poor are less healthy despite their access to free socialized care? are you so dense and to presume that has something to do with ethnicity in the face of the lifestyle choices which dominate that focus group... the cigarettes and overconsumption of shitty foods... the reticence to exercise?

pointing to health stats in other countries is the first sign of a losing argument on this topic because healthcare and health outcomes are not connected beyond those levels present in all developed nations. after there's an accessible medical infrastructure in place for emergency and natal care, the significance of coverage takes a backseat to lifestyles by and large.

Your notion is absurd. No sane person would argue that the health problems of america are completely beyond the reach of a competent health care system. Maybe that's why you try to back it up with the ridiculous implication that the poor are being given adequate health care.

In the real world, entire populations of americans have changed thier lifestyle choices such as diet and cigarettes because the health care system educated them about it. In wingnut world, the fact that the health care has successfully dealt with such issues in the past means that it can't possibly deal successful;y with them in the future

But you're right to describe the posting of facts as "the first sign of a losing argument". It's the first sign a wingnut is about to lose because wingnuts don't know facts. For example, this wingnut does know the fact that the international studies measured things like prenatal care and emergency care.

There's no end to the list of facts wingnuts do not know

i'm not your wingnut, buddy, and the impact of lifestyle on health outcomes is factual as well. it is far more cogent to those outcomes in the US than are matters of quality of care for the reasons that i've pointed out. plain and simple, americans are unhealthy and i'm not impressed by the extent which our healthcare system educates people. it is not an education system. im not impressed by the extent to which our education system educates people about healthful lifestyle. altogether, it is a matter of actions not knowledge. healthy living is instilled not taught.

think that over, then think about the implications of the care of america's poor which you characterize as inadequate with respect to a discussion of extending such single-payer care to all americans.

 

[sangha]

Please read this study as an example of one of the reasons for our rankings, particularly for life expectancy. I believe based upon this study, that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating, but that our overall unhealthy lifestyles at least partially are; there are other factors as well, based upon how statistics are reported. Here is a quote from the study:
http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

Life expectancy is not the only measure we do poorly on. We pay more than anyone else. We pay 50% more than the nation with the 2nd highest per capita expense.

The idea that we do so poorly in so many ways because of factors beyond our health care system defies credibility. While a health care system cant cure every condition, a competent one does not fail to respond to numerous areas of of poor performance.

As I said, it is only one of the reasons for our low ranking. Where is the credible study that gives us the main reasons why we pay more than other countries? I haven’t seen it.

What I do know is what is driving up our costs, based upon an analysis by CBO I provided in another thread. Basically, new technology development is by far the greatest reason for increases in spending; other reasons included increases in personal income, and more access to health care spending through third party systems (Medicare and Medicaid). Basically, we spend more because we can and this increase in spending results in increases in development of new technologies, which America leads by far in money spent on development.
Technological Change and the Growth of Health Care Spending

If all you had said was "it is only one of the reasons", I would not disagree, But you went further than that. You said ". I believe based upon this study, that our health care system is not to blame for our low rating, but that our overall unhealthy lifestyles at least partially are; there are other factors as well, based upon how statistics are reported."

And increases in technology do not explain why routine procedures cost hundreds of dollars while similar procedures cost far less in other nations, nor do increases in personal income (particularly when the premiums increase several times faster than the minor iincrease in income does) and more access bring per capita costs down

Furthermore, increases in spending do not necesarily lead to development of new technology. Increased spending on providing immunizations to poor children does not lead to the development of expensive new technology. Increased spending on developing expensive new technology is what causes the development of expensive new technologies.

Basically, you're full of hot air. You want to argue that our health care system is a minor factor in health outcomes, but you can't point to what the major factor(s) is/are. You want to hide the fact that your position is baseless nonsense with static about things that have little to no influence on the cost of care or health outcomes.

 

[sangha]

i dont think it serves your argument to propose solutions out one end and be naive out the other. america has healthfulness problems in serious ways. this is independent of the solutions available to them from medical care. would you contest the idea that america's poor are less healthy despite their access to free socialized care? are you so dense and to presume that has something to do with ethnicity in the face of the lifestyle choices which dominate that focus group... the cigarettes and overconsumption of shitty foods... the reticence to exercise?

pointing to health stats in other countries is the first sign of a losing argument on this topic because healthcare and health outcomes are not connected beyond those levels present in all developed nations. after there's an accessible medical infrastructure in place for emergency and natal care, the significance of coverage takes a backseat to lifestyles by and large.

Your notion is absurd. No sane person would argue that the health problems of america are completely beyond the reach of a competent health care system. Maybe that's why you try to back it up with the ridiculous implication that the poor are being given adequate health care.

In the real world, entire populations of americans have changed thier lifestyle choices such as diet and cigarettes because the health care system educated them about it. In wingnut world, the fact that the health care has successfully dealt with such issues in the past means that it can't possibly deal successful;y with them in the future

But you're right to describe the posting of facts as "the first sign of a losing argument". It's the first sign a wingnut is about to lose because wingnuts don't know facts. For example, this wingnut does know the fact that the international studies measured things like prenatal care and emergency care.

There's no end to the list of facts wingnuts do not know

i'm not your wingnut, buddy, and the impact of lifestyle on health outcomes is factual as well. it is far more cogent to those outcomes in the US than are matters of quality of care for the reasons that i've pointed out. plain and simple, americans are unhealthy and i'm not impressed by the extent which our healthcare system educates people. it is not an education system. im not impressed by the extent to which our education system educates people about healthful lifestyle. altogether, it is a matter of actions not knowledge. healthy living is instilled not taught.

think that over, then think about the implications of the care of america's poor which you characterize as inadequate with respect to a discussion of extending such single-payer care to all americans.

Yes, lifestyle has a very important effect on health outcomes. Where you fail is when you completely ignore the ability of a competent health system to change peoples' lifestyle.

Even you admit the health care system is failing to educate people about the affects of lifestyle on their health. Even you admit that this is an important task. So how is this NOT a failing of our health care system?

The obvious answer is that it is, but will you admit that and acknowledge that poor health outcomes is a symptom of a malfunctioning health care system?

 

[Meister]

Your notion is absurd. No sane person would argue that the health problems of america are completely beyond the reach of a competent health care system. Maybe that's why you try to back it up with the ridiculous implication that the poor are being given adequate health care.

In the real world, entire populations of americans have changed thier lifestyle choices such as diet and cigarettes because the health care system educated them about it. In wingnut world, the fact that the health care has successfully dealt with such issues in the past means that it can't possibly deal successful;y with them in the future

But you're right to describe the posting of facts as "the first sign of a losing argument". It's the first sign a wingnut is about to lose because wingnuts don't know facts. For example, this wingnut does know the fact that the international studies measured things like prenatal care and emergency care.

There's no end to the list of facts wingnuts do not know

i'm not your wingnut, buddy, and the impact of lifestyle on health outcomes is factual as well. it is far more cogent to those outcomes in the US than are matters of quality of care for the reasons that i've pointed out. plain and simple, americans are unhealthy and i'm not impressed by the extent which our healthcare system educates people. it is not an education system. im not impressed by the extent to which our education system educates people about healthful lifestyle. altogether, it is a matter of actions not knowledge. healthy living is instilled not taught.

think that over, then think about the implications of the care of america's poor which you characterize as inadequate with respect to a discussion of extending such single-payer care to all americans.

Yes, lifestyle has a very important effect on health outcomes. Where you fail is when you completely ignore the ability of a competent health system to change peoples' lifestyle.

Even you admit the health care system is failing to educate people about the affects of lifestyle on their health. Even you admit that this is an important task. So how is this NOT a failing of our health care system?

The obvious answer is that it is, but will you admit that and acknowledge that poor health outcomes is a symptom of a malfunctioning health care system?

Just get the government to implement mandates to change our life styles.

 

[sangha]

i'm not your wingnut, buddy, and the impact of lifestyle on health outcomes is factual as well. it is far more cogent to those outcomes in the US than are matters of quality of care for the reasons that i've pointed out. plain and simple, americans are unhealthy and i'm not impressed by the extent which our healthcare system educates people. it is not an education system. im not impressed by the extent to which our education system educates people about healthful lifestyle. altogether, it is a matter of actions not knowledge. healthy living is instilled not taught.

think that over, then think about the implications of the care of america's poor which you characterize as inadequate with respect to a discussion of extending such single-payer care to all americans.

Yes, lifestyle has a very important effect on health outcomes. Where you fail is when you completely ignore the ability of a competent health system to change peoples' lifestyle.

Even you admit the health care system is failing to educate people about the affects of lifestyle on their health. Even you admit that this is an important task. So how is this NOT a failing of our health care system?

The obvious answer is that it is, but will you admit that and acknowledge that poor health outcomes is a symptom of a malfunctioning health care system?

Just get the government to implement mandates to change our life styles.

Translation: Wingnuts don't like to admit they were wrong, so they try to change the subject

 

[antagon]

Your notion is absurd. No sane person would argue that the health problems of america are completely beyond the reach of a competent health care system. Maybe that's why you try to back it up with the ridiculous implication that the poor are being given adequate health care.

In the real world, entire populations of americans have changed thier lifestyle choices such as diet and cigarettes because the health care system educated them about it. In wingnut world, the fact that the health care has successfully dealt with such issues in the past means that it can't possibly deal successful;y with them in the future

But you're right to describe the posting of facts as "the first sign of a losing argument". It's the first sign a wingnut is about to lose because wingnuts don't know facts. For example, this wingnut does know the fact that the international studies measured things like prenatal care and emergency care.

There's no end to the list of facts wingnuts do not know

i'm not your wingnut, buddy, and the impact of lifestyle on health outcomes is factual as well. it is far more cogent to those outcomes in the US than are matters of quality of care for the reasons that i've pointed out. plain and simple, americans are unhealthy and i'm not impressed by the extent which our healthcare system educates people. it is not an education system. im not impressed by the extent to which our education system educates people about healthful lifestyle. altogether, it is a matter of actions not knowledge. healthy living is instilled not taught.

think that over, then think about the implications of the care of america's poor which you characterize as inadequate with respect to a discussion of extending such single-payer care to all americans.

Yes, lifestyle has a very important effect on health outcomes. Where you fail is when you completely ignore the ability of a competent health system to change peoples' lifestyle.

Even you admit the health care system is failing to educate people about the affects of lifestyle on their health. Even you admit that this is an important task. So how is this NOT a failing of our health care system?

The obvious answer is that it is, but will you admit that and acknowledge that poor health outcomes is a symptom of a malfunctioning health care system?

no, dummy. not the obvious answer. not an answer i'd acknowledge. healthcare is not a primary source of education on diet and exercise. is this what you are proposing that our healthcare system should be? are you stating that the lifestyles in other more healthful countries are those which were taught them in hospitals? how is obesity converse to the proliferation of medical coverage in the US? who's got the absurd notion now?

people know damn well that they are disgusting when they are. they see me breaking a sweat to keep in shape and characterize the media as portraying unrealistic images of people who are narrower than they are, they are aware that the differences between fitness and obesity are not magical. notwithstanding, they claim that healthy food choices are nasty rabbit food. this is culture not stupidity.

have you finished reconciling your statement about the inadequacy of medicaid with the inadequacy of single payer care? in light of success in that challenge do you still maintain some need to pursue single payer care for all in an effort to paradoxically improve health outcomes?

 

[sangha]

i'm not your wingnut, buddy, and the impact of lifestyle on health outcomes is factual as well. it is far more cogent to those outcomes in the US than are matters of quality of care for the reasons that i've pointed out. plain and simple, americans are unhealthy and i'm not impressed by the extent which our healthcare system educates people. it is not an education system. im not impressed by the extent to which our education system educates people about healthful lifestyle. altogether, it is a matter of actions not knowledge. healthy living is instilled not taught.

think that over, then think about the implications of the care of america's poor which you characterize as inadequate with respect to a discussion of extending such single-payer care to all americans.

Yes, lifestyle has a very important effect on health outcomes. Where you fail is when you completely ignore the ability of a competent health system to change peoples' lifestyle.

Even you admit the health care system is failing to educate people about the affects of lifestyle on their health. Even you admit that this is an important task. So how is this NOT a failing of our health care system?

The obvious answer is that it is, but will you admit that and acknowledge that poor health outcomes is a symptom of a malfunctioning health care system?

no, dummy. not the obvious answer. not an answer i'd acknowledge. healthcare is not a primary source of education on diet and exercise. is this what you are proposing that our healthcare system should be? are you stating that the lifestyles in other more healthful countries are those which were taught them in hospitals? how is obesity converse to the proliferation of medical coverage in the US? who's got the absurd notion now?

people know damn well that they are disgusting when they are. they see me breaking a sweat to keep in shape and characterize the media as portraying unrealistic images of people who are narrower than they are, they are aware that the differences between fitness and obesity are not magical. notwithstanding, they claim that healthy food choices are nasty rabbit food. this is culture not stupidity.

have you finished reconciling your statement about the inadequacy of medicaid with the inadequacy of single payer care? in light of success in that challenge do you still maintain some need to pursue single payer care for all in an effort to paradoxically improve health outcomes?

Wow, you've really gone off the deep end. I think it's hilarious the way you argue that the health care system has no role to play in educating the public about matters relating to their health. Of course, it's so inane you won't come right out and say it. That would be too honest for you

So instead you have to put words in my mouth about people being educated in hospitals and other nonsense.

And which of the many voices in your head told you I said anything about reconciling medicaid and single payer? If wingnuts didnt make stuff up, they'd have nothing to say

I'd ask you to quote where I said such a thing, but I know that wingnuts never back up their absurdly dishonest claims. They just post a bunch of childish insults

 

[antagon]

Yes, lifestyle has a very important effect on health outcomes. Where you fail is when you completely ignore the ability of a competent health system to change peoples' lifestyle.

Even you admit the health care system is failing to educate people about the affects of lifestyle on their health. Even you admit that this is an important task. So how is this NOT a failing of our health care system?

The obvious answer is that it is, but will you admit that and acknowledge that poor health outcomes is a symptom of a malfunctioning health care system?

no, dummy. not the obvious answer. not an answer i'd acknowledge. healthcare is not a primary source of education on diet and exercise. is this what you are proposing that our healthcare system should be? are you stating that the lifestyles in other more healthful countries are those which were taught them in hospitals? how is obesity converse to the proliferation of medical coverage in the US? who's got the absurd notion now?

people know damn well that they are disgusting when they are. they see me breaking a sweat to keep in shape and characterize the media as portraying unrealistic images of people who are narrower than they are, they are aware that the differences between fitness and obesity are not magical. notwithstanding, they claim that healthy food choices are nasty rabbit food. this is culture not stupidity.

have you finished reconciling your statement about the inadequacy of medicaid with the inadequacy of single payer care? in light of success in that challenge do you still maintain some need to pursue single payer care for all in an effort to paradoxically improve health outcomes?

Wow, you've really gone off the deep end. I think it's hilarious the way you argue that the health care system has no role to play in educating the public about matters relating to their health. Of course, it's so inane you won't come right out and say it. That would be too honest for you

So instead you have to put words in my mouth about people being educated in hospitals and other nonsense.

And which of the many voices in your head told you I said anything about reconciling medicaid and single payer? If wingnuts didnt make stuff up, they'd have nothing to say

I'd ask you to quote where I said such a thing, but I know that wingnuts never back up their absurdly dishonest claims. They just post a bunch of childish insults

similarly, maybe you could pin me down saying that "the health care system has no role to play in educating the public about matters relating to their health".

i've asked you to make some sense through reconciling your statement that medicaid is inadequate, and the discussion of this thread whereby socialized healthcare like medicaid is being vetted for its efficacy. look at the title of the thread against the posture of your argument. what can i say?

in your earlier argument that quality of healthcare drives quality of outcomes, you've conceded that lifestyle is important. you insisted that lifestyle education is the outcome-facilitator in quality of healthcare to persist in a link between studies which show outcomes in the US are inferior to, say, european outcomes. challenged to come out and say whether you thought that the outcomes in europe were driven by healthcare-facilitated lifestyle education, you have gone ad hominem troll status to deflect the ways your stupid argument is imperiled. noted.