What the Left Isn't Telling You About US Healthcare

[ba1614]

More lies and personal insults. I keep my people away from "predatory lenders."

Demonizing insurance companies? No need. They do it to themselves.

60% of U.S. bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, and have you ever hear the term "pre-existing condition?"

Our system sucks. That is why it is failing.

Bullshit, most of those bankruptcies are because they were swimming in debt. Medical issues may have been the straw that broke the camels back, but lifestyle is the main issue.

Wow, did you just make that up on the spot?

Yes, he did.

It is a fuckin' bullshit lie! Where's this "60% of U.S. bankruptcies are caused by medical bills" come from?

A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses

NCHC | Facts About Healthcare - Health Insurance Costs

I've read enough of your posts to gather that you don't quite understand the concept of personal responsibility, but if $12 000 puts you into bankruptcy, then you have been living above your means.
Not to mention that the above study suggests it was a contributing factor in 50% of the filings. Not THE fucking reason for 60%!!

 

[WillowTree]

Once again, insults and changing the subject.

Ever heard the term "pre-existing condition?"

ever heard of the term "hydrocephalus"? You've got it.

People who engage in personal attacks should be banned from the board.

you are impotent aren't you?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I prepared, and it punished me anyway. Please continue telling me how great this system is. I don't know for certain that a government option is the best answer. What I can tell you is that none of you have come up with any realistic alternatives. Your answer is the same old same old; our system is fine the way it is, so why mess with it, lol.

While it is true that Medicare spending will increase as a percentage of GDP, it is also true that private spending is projected to increase at an even greater rate than Medicare. But as usual, none of you address this. You honestly believe that the average American can afford to spend twice what they are spending now and it will be good for our economy and health. It's no wonder our healthcare industry is such a mess.

There is one simple fact that those like you refuse to address. Within the private sector of healthcare, we are spending around 30% of all costs on administration and profits. The profit portion really isn't that significant, but the administrative costs are over 25%. Anyone who tries to justify that kind of spending on administrative costs in an industry that consumes nearly 17% of GDP is out of their mind.

Your simple one liners attacking any alternative just doesn't hold water, nor does it bring anything positive to the table.

OUR simple one-liners? You run from thread to thread, hauling your suitcase packed with three or four boilerplate posts about your personal sob story, and WE have nothing new to say? There are a lot more facts here than just one that YOU refuse to address. Where's your post actually speaking to and refuting the facts that are the basis of the thread? Try bringing THAT to the table, instead of groveling for our pity as though that's a cogent, logical debate point.

I see what you mentioned in the other thread now.

I just realized I probably should have created my health care thread in this section.

That's okay. Clearly, we can't have too many places to beat these fools over their thick, rock heads with the truth.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You make money off people looking for housing is neither a lie or a personal insult, but keep spinning kirky.

The only lie i see is the 60% of bankruptcies caused by medical bills, another lame attempt to demonize. Anyone could just as easily say that 60% of home forclosures were caused by people like you ......

This is your "teachable moment", i doubt you'll learn though .....

Once again, insults and changing the subject.

Ever heard the term "pre-existing condition?"

ever heard of the term "hydrocephalus"? You've got it.

I was going to go with "ancephalus" myself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's a puzzlement why people who make average salaries are so anxious to defend $multi-billion corporations and individuals.
Anyone here worth even $multi-millions?

It's a puzzlement to me why some people think "right and wrong" are defined by "what's good for me". I don't have to be a multimillionaire to be a good person, and you make it clear that one doesn't have to be a multimillionaire to be a bad one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Okay, let's discuss health care in industrialized nations, shall we? Let's cut through some of the liberal smoke and mirrors and get down to brass tacks.

The left tells us in horrified tones that the United States spends far more on health care than any other country, whether measured as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) or by expenditure per capita. This is quite true. the United States now spends close to 16 percent of GDP on health care, nearly 6.1 percent more than the average for other industrialized countries.

What is not true is that health care spending is automatically bad. To a large degree, America spends money on health care because it is a wealthy nation and chooses to do so. Economists consider health care a “normal good,” meaning that spending is positively correlated with income. As incomes rise, people want more of that good. Because we are a wealthy nation, we can and do demand more health care.

The left also tells us that health insurance premiums are rising faster than wages are, and this is also true. What they forget to tell you is that government health care programs, particularly Medicare and Medicaid, are piling up enormous burdens of debt for future generations. Medicare’s unfunded liabilities now top $50 trillion. Unchecked, Medicaid spending will increase fourfold as a percentage of federal outlays over the next century. In other words, what we already have in the direction they want to go isn't doing any better in the "holding down costs" arena. None of this indicates that what's needed is a huge new bureaucracy . . . of ANY type.

The left loves to cite a 2000 World Health Organization study that ranks the U.S. health care system 37th in the world, “slightly better than Slovenia.” What they don't bother to tell you (and often don't know themselves) is that this study bases its conclusions on such highly subjective measures as “fairness” and criteria that are not strictly related to a country’s health care system, such as “tobacco control.” For example, the WHO report penalizes the United States for not having a sufficiently progressive tax system, not providing all citizens with health insurance, and having a general paucity of social welfare programs. Indeed, much of the poor performance of the United States is due to its ranking of 54th in the category of fairness. The United States is actually penalized for adopting Health Savings Accounts and because, according to the WHO, patients pay too much out of pocket. Such judgments clearly reflect a particular political point of view, rather than a neutral measure of health care quality. They also neglect to mention that the WHO report ranks the United States number one in the world in responsiveness to patients’ needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality. Whoops!

The left likes to point out how much higher other countries' life expectancy and infant mortality rates are compared to ours. What they don't tell you is that life expectancies are affected by exogenous factors such as violent crime, poverty, obesity, tobacco and drug use, and other issues unrelated to health care. In fact, a study by Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider for the American Enterprise Institute found that those exogenous factors are so distorting that if you correct for homicides and accidents, the United States rises to the top of the list for life expectancy.

Likewise, infant mortality is highly problematic. In the United States, very low birth-weight infants have a much greater chance of being brought to term with the latest medical technologies. Some of those low birthweight babies die soon after birth, which boosts our infant mortality rate, but in many other Western countries, those high-risk, low birth-weight infants are not included when infant mortality is calculated. In addition, many countries use abortion to eliminate problem pregnancies. For example, Michael Moore cites low infant mortality rates in Cuba, yet that country has one of the world’s highest abortion rates, meaning that many babies with health problems that could lead to early deaths are never brought to term.

When you compare the outcomes for specific diseases, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world. Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the United States than in other countries. Notably, when former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery last year, he didn’t go to a French, Canadian, Cuban, or even Italian hospital—he went to the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. Likewise, Canadian MP Belinda Stronach had surgery for her breast cancer at a California hospital.

The United States drives much of the innovation and research on health care worldwide. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine are either U.S. citizens or individuals working here. U.S. companies have developed half of all new major medicines introduced worldwide over the past 20 years. In fact, Americans played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the past 30 years. Advanced medical technology is far more available in the United States than in nearly any other country.

The same is true for prescription drugs. For example, 44 percent of Americans who could benefit from statins, lipid-lowering medication that reduces cholesterol and protects against heart disease, take the drug. That number seems low until compared with the 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians who could both benefit from the drug and receive it. Similarly, 60 percent of Americans taking anti-psychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses are taking the most recent generation of drugs, which have fewer side effects. But just 20 percent of Spanish patients and 10 percent of Germans receive the most recent drugs.

(Thanks to the Cato Institute for this info.)

Now, tell me how this guy is wrong...

YouTube - Weekly Address: Necessary Reform, Absurd Attacks

It's interesting how you say, "Let ME tell you . . ." and then you throw up some YouTube link for someone ELSE to tell me. I don't watch YouTube links. You have something to say in rebuttal? Get some balls and say it for yourself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Chris is a room temperature IQ fucking nitwit, who only knows canards, slogans and worn out false dichotomy questions that beg the answers he wants.

He wouldn't know an analytical thought if it fell on him.

It's true. If an original thought ever entered his coconut, it would probably implode.

But back to the topic of the truth about US healthcare. None of this is to say that the US system is perfect, because it isn't. It's just to point out that what's wrong with our system isn't what the left tells us it is, and the solution DEFINITELY isn't what they tell us.

Your original post was excellent! Speaks to facts and not emotionalism. Any sane thinking person would pay attention.

Which explains why, in ten pages of posts, not one leftist has dredged up the testicular fortitude to answer anything in that post.

 

[Bfgrn]

Okay, let's discuss health care in industrialized nations, shall we? Let's cut through some of the liberal smoke and mirrors and get down to brass tacks.

The left tells us in horrified tones that the United States spends far more on health care than any other country, whether measured as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) or by expenditure per capita. This is quite true. the United States now spends close to 16 percent of GDP on health care, nearly 6.1 percent more than the average for other industrialized countries.

What is not true is that health care spending is automatically bad. To a large degree, America spends money on health care because it is a wealthy nation and chooses to do so. Economists consider health care a “normal good,” meaning that spending is positively correlated with income. As incomes rise, people want more of that good. Because we are a wealthy nation, we can and do demand more health care.

The left also tells us that health insurance premiums are rising faster than wages are, and this is also true. What they forget to tell you is that government health care programs, particularly Medicare and Medicaid, are piling up enormous burdens of debt for future generations. Medicare’s unfunded liabilities now top $50 trillion. Unchecked, Medicaid spending will increase fourfold as a percentage of federal outlays over the next century. In other words, what we already have in the direction they want to go isn't doing any better in the "holding down costs" arena. None of this indicates that what's needed is a huge new bureaucracy . . . of ANY type.

The left loves to cite a 2000 World Health Organization study that ranks the U.S. health care system 37th in the world, “slightly better than Slovenia.” What they don't bother to tell you (and often don't know themselves) is that this study bases its conclusions on such highly subjective measures as “fairness” and criteria that are not strictly related to a country’s health care system, such as “tobacco control.” For example, the WHO report penalizes the United States for not having a sufficiently progressive tax system, not providing all citizens with health insurance, and having a general paucity of social welfare programs. Indeed, much of the poor performance of the United States is due to its ranking of 54th in the category of fairness. The United States is actually penalized for adopting Health Savings Accounts and because, according to the WHO, patients pay too much out of pocket. Such judgments clearly reflect a particular political point of view, rather than a neutral measure of health care quality. They also neglect to mention that the WHO report ranks the United States number one in the world in responsiveness to patients’ needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, timely care, and confidentiality. Whoops!

The left likes to point out how much higher other countries' life expectancy and infant mortality rates are compared to ours. What they don't tell you is that life expectancies are affected by exogenous factors such as violent crime, poverty, obesity, tobacco and drug use, and other issues unrelated to health care. In fact, a study by Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider for the American Enterprise Institute found that those exogenous factors are so distorting that if you correct for homicides and accidents, the United States rises to the top of the list for life expectancy.

Likewise, infant mortality is highly problematic. In the United States, very low birth-weight infants have a much greater chance of being brought to term with the latest medical technologies. Some of those low birthweight babies die soon after birth, which boosts our infant mortality rate, but in many other Western countries, those high-risk, low birth-weight infants are not included when infant mortality is calculated. In addition, many countries use abortion to eliminate problem pregnancies. For example, Michael Moore cites low infant mortality rates in Cuba, yet that country has one of the world’s highest abortion rates, meaning that many babies with health problems that could lead to early deaths are never brought to term.

When you compare the outcomes for specific diseases, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world. Whether the disease is cancer, pneumonia, heart disease, or AIDS, the chances of a patient surviving are far higher in the United States than in other countries. Notably, when former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery last year, he didn’t go to a French, Canadian, Cuban, or even Italian hospital—he went to the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio. Likewise, Canadian MP Belinda Stronach had surgery for her breast cancer at a California hospital.

The United States drives much of the innovation and research on health care worldwide. Eighteen of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine are either U.S. citizens or individuals working here. U.S. companies have developed half of all new major medicines introduced worldwide over the past 20 years. In fact, Americans played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the past 30 years. Advanced medical technology is far more available in the United States than in nearly any other country.

The same is true for prescription drugs. For example, 44 percent of Americans who could benefit from statins, lipid-lowering medication that reduces cholesterol and protects against heart disease, take the drug. That number seems low until compared with the 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons, and 17 percent of Italians who could both benefit from the drug and receive it. Similarly, 60 percent of Americans taking anti-psychotic medication for the treatment of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses are taking the most recent generation of drugs, which have fewer side effects. But just 20 percent of Spanish patients and 10 percent of Germans receive the most recent drugs.

(Thanks to the Cato Institute for this info.)

Now, tell me how this guy is wrong...

YouTube - Weekly Address: Necessary Reform, Absurd Attacks

It's interesting how you say, "Let ME tell you . . ." and then you throw up some YouTube link for someone ELSE to tell me. I don't watch YouTube links. You have something to say in rebuttal? Get some balls and say it for yourself.

Where did I say "let me tell you"? Ever been tested for dyslexia? You told me what the Cato Institute had to say. So what's your point? Do you support the status quo?

 

[Chris]

It's true. If an original thought ever entered his coconut, it would probably implode.

But back to the topic of the truth about US healthcare. None of this is to say that the US system is perfect, because it isn't. It's just to point out that what's wrong with our system isn't what the left tells us it is, and the solution DEFINITELY isn't what they tell us.

Your original post was excellent! Speaks to facts and not emotionalism. Any sane thinking person would pay attention.

Which explains why, in ten pages of posts, not one leftist has dredged up the testicular fortitude to answer anything in that post.

Ever heard of the term "pre-existing condition?"

 

[elvis]

Your original post was excellent! Speaks to facts and not emotionalism. Any sane thinking person would pay attention.

Which explains why, in ten pages of posts, not one leftist has dredged up the testicular fortitude to answer anything in that post.

Ever heard of the term "pre-existing condition?"

Ever heard of the term "hydrocephalus"? Because you have it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now, tell me how this guy is wrong...

YouTube - Weekly Address: Necessary Reform, Absurd Attacks

It's interesting how you say, "Let ME tell you . . ." and then you throw up some YouTube link for someone ELSE to tell me. I don't watch YouTube links. You have something to say in rebuttal? Get some balls and say it for yourself.

Where did I say "let me tell you"? Ever been tested for dyslexia? You told me what the Cato Institute had to say. So what's your point? Do you support the status quo?

I'll make you a deal. I'll answer your question if you'll agree to actually address the topic of this thread YOURSELF, instead of hiding behind YouTube. Deal?

 

[Chris]

When faced with inconvienent truths, the right wing does two things...

Hurls insults.

Or changes the subject.

Your insults don't change the fact that our system sucks.

It punishes the sick and the poor.

No it doesn't.

Are there things wrong with it? Yes.

Room for improvement? Lots.

Should they be focusing on fixing and improving on what we already have? Yes.

Should the government be concocting a new jumbo-sized health care bureaucracy that will introduce gobs of red tape, that will cost way more money than what they're claiming, that will work less efficiently, that we can't afford, and that has much less to do with health care and much more to do with growing the government control over our lives even more? NO.

Jumbo sized bureaucracy?

You mean the 150 seperate insurance companies, and all the staff that doctors have to hire to deal with them?

Why do you think all the other industrialized countries pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare?

 

[elvis]

When faced with inconvienent truths, the right wing does two things...

Hurls insults.

Or changes the subject.

Your insults don't change the fact that our system sucks.

It punishes the sick and the poor.

No it doesn't.

Are there things wrong with it? Yes.

Room for improvement? Lots.

Should they be focusing on fixing and improving on what we already have? Yes.

Should the government be concocting a new jumbo-sized health care bureaucracy that will introduce gobs of red tape, that will cost way more money than what they're claiming, that will work less efficiently, that we can't afford, and that has much less to do with health care and much more to do with growing the government control over our lives even more? NO.

Jumbo sized bureaucracy?

You mean the 150 seperate insurance companies, and all the staff that doctors have to hire to deal with them?

Why do you think all the other industrialized countries pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare?

some of that is because of shitstains like you who refuse to cover themselves. in those "civilized countries", you get to wait months to see your doctor because of the doctors shortages which are caused by the government setting price limits.

 

[Zoom-boing]

When faced with inconvienent truths, the right wing does two things...

Hurls insults.

Or changes the subject.

Your insults don't change the fact that our system sucks.

It punishes the sick and the poor.

No it doesn't.

Are there things wrong with it? Yes.

Room for improvement? Lots.

Should they be focusing on fixing and improving on what we already have? Yes.

Should the government be concocting a new jumbo-sized health care bureaucracy that will introduce gobs of red tape, that will cost way more money than what they're claiming, that will work less efficiently, that we can't afford, and that has much less to do with health care and much more to do with growing the government control over our lives even more? NO.

Jumbo sized bureaucracy?

You mean the 150 seperate insurance companies, and all the staff that doctors have to hire to deal with them?

Why do you think all the other industrialized countries pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare?

Yes. Like this:

We have 1.4 million people employed by the National Health Service. It is the third biggest employer in the world after the Red Army in China and the Indian National Railways. Most of those 1.4 million people are administrators, that the managers outnumber the doctors and nurses. And that is the electoral bloc that makes it almost impossible to get rid of.

Daniel Hannan, British politician and Member of the European Parliament, in an interview with Glenn Beck.

Daniel Hannan on Health Care Debate - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

 

[DiveCon]

No it doesn't.

Are there things wrong with it? Yes.

Room for improvement? Lots.

Should they be focusing on fixing and improving on what we already have? Yes.

Should the government be concocting a new jumbo-sized health care bureaucracy that will introduce gobs of red tape, that will cost way more money than what they're claiming, that will work less efficiently, that we can't afford, and that has much less to do with health care and much more to do with growing the government control over our lives even more? NO.

Jumbo sized bureaucracy?

You mean the 150 seperate insurance companies, and all the staff that doctors have to hire to deal with them?

Why do you think all the other industrialized countries pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare?

Yes. Like this:

We have 1.4 million people employed by the National Health Service. It is the third biggest employer in the world after the Red Army in China and the Indian National Railways. Most of those 1.4 million people are administrators, that the managers outnumber the doctors and nurses. And that is the electoral bloc that makes it almost impossible to get rid of.

Daniel Hannan, British politician and Member of the European Parliament, in an interview with Glenn Beck.

Daniel Hannan on Health Care Debate - Glenn Beck - FOXNews.com

holy crap
the UK need the 3rd largest employment base to administer their health service?

 

[Navy1960]

The insurance industry had about 2.3 million wage and salary jobs in 2006. Insurance carriers accounted for 62 percent of jobs, while insurance agencies, brokerages, and providers of other insurance-related services accounted for 38 percent of jobs.

The majority of establishments in the insurance industry were small; however, a few large establishments accounted for many of the jobs in this industry. Insurance carriers tend to be large establishments, often employing 250 or more workers, whereas agencies and brokerages tend to be much smaller, frequently employing fewer than 20 workers (chart 1).

Insurance

According to data from the U.S. Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS), total
automotive employment in the United States increased by 8% from 1991 to 2005 (but by just 4%
since 1990), rising from 1,054,000 workers to 1,098,000. (See chart on following page.)
However, looking only at these end points hides a significant and dramatic downturn that has
decimated the industry since the year 2000. In that year, employment reached a peak of
1,313,600 workers, but the drop from that peak over the ensuing five years to 2005’s level
represents a decline of 16%, with a total loss of 215,500 jobs. The two major halves of the
automotive industry – the parts producing companies and the motor vehicle assembly companies
– show different trends over the long-term, but similar declines in recent years.

http://www.trade.gov/static/auto_reports_jobloss.pdf


Let me see if I understand this correctly now, the 2 plus million people that work in the insurance industry their jobs are somehow not "worthy" because some believe that healthcare should be a right and therefor the jobs of these people should be thrown in the garbage can and then turn around and advocate for another industry because of the same employment issue seem to think it's okay to be selective as long as it fits the agenda.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

This mentally deranged International Socialist health care plan will be the end of this Country as we know it. Hey you bottomfeeders? You are not entitled to crap. Provide for yourselves and your families. Get off welfare, Get off the dope and get off of other peoples backs and hard work. You people who support this are the scum at the bottom of an Outhouse. ~BH

 

[Bfgrn]

The insurance industry had about 2.3 million wage and salary jobs in 2006. Insurance carriers accounted for 62 percent of jobs, while insurance agencies, brokerages, and providers of other insurance-related services accounted for 38 percent of jobs.

The majority of establishments in the insurance industry were small; however, a few large establishments accounted for many of the jobs in this industry. Insurance carriers tend to be large establishments, often employing 250 or more workers, whereas agencies and brokerages tend to be much smaller, frequently employing fewer than 20 workers (chart 1).

Insurance

According to data from the U.S. Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS), total
automotive employment in the United States increased by 8% from 1991 to 2005 (but by just 4%
since 1990), rising from 1,054,000 workers to 1,098,000. (See chart on following page.)
However, looking only at these end points hides a significant and dramatic downturn that has
decimated the industry since the year 2000. In that year, employment reached a peak of
1,313,600 workers, but the drop from that peak over the ensuing five years to 2005’s level
represents a decline of 16%, with a total loss of 215,500 jobs. The two major halves of the
automotive industry – the parts producing companies and the motor vehicle assembly companies
– show different trends over the long-term, but similar declines in recent years.

http://www.trade.gov/static/auto_reports_jobloss.pdf


Let me see if I understand this correctly now, the 2 plus million people that work in the insurance industry their jobs are somehow not "worthy" because some believe that healthcare should be a right and therefor the jobs of these people should be thrown in the garbage can and then turn around and advocate for another industry because of the same employment issue seem to think it's okay to be selective as long as it fits the agenda.

Hey Navy...YES...health care IS a right...PLEASE give me ONE scenario where any citizen can have the RIGHT to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness WITHOUT his or her health?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

 

[Skull Pilot]

and both medicare and social security are going broke

so line up and wait for your ever decreasing benefits

 

[Oddball]

Yes, they are socialistic, as well as financial train wrecks in waiting.

You sure you want to use those two Ponzi schemes as evidence of "succcess"??