Who are the 47 million Americans who ‘don’t have health care?”

[rayboyusmc]

You're almost as stupid as AGayBiker.

Wow, Ali, what a cutting remark.

I guess you and Glockie thing "gay" is a really bad word.

 

[cbi0090]

The US health care system needs an enema (to put it in the words of the Joker), but no Democrat is going to fix it. If they say they will they are flat out lying. For Obama to actually fix the source of the problem he would have to fight his own party. What do you think the chances are of that?

Their party members thrive on this system and any attempt for tort reform they block for that reason. Democrats are the "for the people" plaintiff lawyers. They are the ones who say they represent Mr. little-guy against the big bad coroporations, hospitals and doctors. That is their muscle and the source of their power. That is the difference between them and the Republicans. John Edwards is one of the most successful of his kind. He is a God in the plaintiff world who go after hospitals...and you pay for it.

 

[Old Rocks]

700,000 American families go bankrupt every year because of medical bills. In the rest of the industrialized nations, that number is zero. Most of us are simply a layoff away from no health insurance. Time to join the rest of the industrialized nations. Socialized Health Care? Damned right, it works better than what we have at present. Americans pay the highest per citizen cost for health care of any nation on earth, and yet we rank in the third world on infant mortality, and very low in the industrialized nations on longevity.

 

[Old Rocks]

You're almost as stupid as AGayBiker.

THe problem IS caused by illegals, who are overburdening our free clinics, our emergency rooms, our jails, and our prisons. The problem is caused by illegals...pregnant illegals in Oregon can receive health coverage in Oregon, btw...but non-pregnant men and women between the ages of 19-63 cannot.

Oh, get off of it. I have seen times where I had no health coverage because of an employer going out of business. And if the problem is illegals, why did not the Republicans fix that after 9-11? After all, most of the illegals have arrived since then.

The reality is that our health care system is the most expensive in the world, and the results are subpar compared to Great Britian, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Taiwan, ect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The reality is that our health care system is the most expensive in the world, and the results are subpar compared to Great Britian, Canada, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Taiwan, ect.

On what basis are you saying this? Prove that this is the case!

 

[Orange_Juice]

I see lots of Americans everyday that don't have dental insurance, can't afford to see a dentists and it shows.

 

[editec]

What stats are you refuting?

Those found in the article first posted.

I'm dubious of the author and seeking confirmation from a more reliable source.

 

[editec]

I see lots of Americans everyday that don't have dental insurance, can't afford to see a dentists and it shows.

They want American workers to be deeperate and toothless, anyway.

 

[Care4all]

illegals MIGHT make up for 25% of the uninsured...those businesses that promote illegals and hire illegals should have to pay for their healthcare, and education, and all other perks....we shouldn't have to....they wouldn't be here if they were not hired by these businesses illegaly....

But the other 75% are Americans without health insurance...ususally because they are young and without a family...so by their own choice, or they are Americans that want it and need it who can't afford it.

 

[Diuretic]

On what basis are you saying this? Prove that this is the case!

If Rocks could prove it would you accept it or would you deny the evidence?

If it were shown that the US health care system is shambolic, would you be concerned or would you simply deny it because that idea is far too troubling to be allowed in your mind?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If Rocks could prove it would you accept it or would you deny the evidence?

If it were shown that the US health care system is shambolic, would you be concerned or would you simply deny it because that idea is far too troubling to be allowed in your mind?

I'm still waiting...

 

[Diuretic]

I'm still waiting...

Okay, now to be fair there needs to be an appreciation of the methodology and as this report points out, it's not an exact science

COMPARATIVE STUDIES have been part of health services research literature for decades. The benefits of these analyses include documenting how the more successful practices can be adapted in another country. Such has been the case in France, where many US health care delivery practices have been adopted in market reforms.1

The World Health Organization (WHO) studied the health systems of 191 countries for its World Health Report 2000.2 The study is provocative and has stimulated significant analysis of the structure and performance of health systems.3 We examine the variables and methodology used by the WHO to measure efficiency and performance of health systems.

The World Health Report 2000: Can Health Care Systems Be Compared Using a Single Measure of Performance?

And all the info is here

WHO | World Health Statistics 2008

Just while you're waiting I mean.

 

[greenpartyaz]

I came upon this and it addresses the 47 million Americans who are constantly being referenced as being uninsured. The website name is laughable, but the numbers are sound.

Who are the 47 million Americans who ‘don’t have health care?”
August 27, 2008 — whatthecrap?

In 2006 the U.S. Census Bureau reported that 46.6 million are people without health insurance. You hear this number all the time today in discussions on what our public policy should be towards health care (particularly - socialized healthcare). But who are these 46.6 million people? Here are a couple things you probably won’t hear from politicians, whether Democratic or Republican:

1. Of that 46.6 million, 9.5 million were not United States Citizens
2. Another 17 million of those people live in households exceeding $50,000 and could purchase healthcare but choose to invest their money in other things.
3. 18 million were between the age of 18-34, most in good health - and either not in need of coverage - or chose not to purchase it (that includes me for a while there). (Also, note that this stat likely overlaps with the one above as commentor Kottcamp reminded me.)
4. 70% of the non-elderly population that become uninsured in a given year - are reinsured in less than one year.

Here are a couple other statistics about healthcare in Canada and Europe:

Canada:

1. More than 825,000 Canadians are on waiting lists for surgery and other necessary treatments.
2. 15 years ago the average wait for Canadians was 9 weeks - today it’s 15 weeks.
3. Over the past 10 years, 11% of physicians trained in Canada have moved to the United States.

Britain:

1. More than 1 million citizens are waiting for hospital admission.
2. Another 200,000 are waiting to get on the waiting list.
3. Each year - the national health service cancels around 100,000 operations.
4. Britain has a government agency that’s sole purpose is to limit citizens access (rationing) to prescription drugs.

Some other important items:

1. 85 new drugs hit the U.S. market from 1998-2002.
2. During that same period - only 44 of those drugs became available in Europe.
3. More than half of the 175 billion dollars in health care technology products purchased throughout the world are produced in the United States.
4. Between 1999-2005 the United States was responsible for the sale of 71% of new pharmaceutical drugs (the next two largest - Japan and Germany accounted for only 4% each).

Who are the 47 million Americans who ‘don’t have health care?” What The Crap? - whatthecrap.us

Two quick points. When have you ever heard of anyone going bankrupt because of a medical emergencies in Europe or Canada?

Two: How many of the rubber-stamped FDA approved drugs do you think are safe? Profit over people's safety!

 

[editec]

FYI, since so many people have asked

"Who is advocating socialized medicine in the USA"

I am.

Universal Single Payer health care (USPHC) would not only continue to bankrupt this nation because USPHC will fail to limit expenses, it would actually speed up the rising costs of health care without substantially improving the nation's health.

What we have now is ALSO bankrupting this nation without substanitally im0proving our health care services, but it isn't doing it as quickly as USPHC surely will.

I believe we basically have two choices: either we fully socialize health care or we get the USA out of the business of providing health care for ANYONE and start letting poor people die.

The percentage of the gross national product that the USA is currently spending on health care has risen 300% in the last thirty years. (it'sa gone from a little over 5% of the GDP to 17% GDP in the last thirty years, folks)

This trend of investing more and more of our GDP for health care cannot continue indefinitely

Thus far, neither party offers us a solution to the absrud rise in health care prices.

And for those of you who are going to tell me how badly screwed up socialized medicine might become?

I completely understand those complaints.

I quite agree that socialized medicine might become a total nightmare. Doesn't have to, but it certainly could if done badly.

But folks, what we have now is becoming a nightmare, too, and that trend is not going to get any better if we do nothing.

A 300% increase in percertages of GDP spend on healthcare in 30 years?

And in the meanwhile people's health care insurance is becoming less and less useful to them?!

That kind of growth in the aggregate cost of health care is just NOT sustainable.

 

[Skeptik]

FYI, since so many people have asked

"Who is advocating socialized medicine in the USA"

I am.

Universal Single Payer health care (USPHC) would not only continue to bankrupt this nation because USPHC will fail to limit expenses, it would actually speed up the rising costs of health care without substantially improving the nation's health.

What we have now is ALSO bankrupting this nation without substanitally im0proving our health care services, but it isn't doing it as quickly as USPHC surely will.

I believe we basically have two choices: either we fully socialize health care or we get the USA out of the business of providing health care for ANYONE and start letting poor people die.

The percentage of the gross national product that the USA is currently spending on health care has risen 300% in the last thirty years. (it'sa gone from a little over 5% of the GDP to 17% GDP in the last thirty years, folks)

This trend of investing more and more of our GDP for health care cannot continue indefinitely

Thus far, neither party offers us a solution to the absrud rise in health care prices.

And for those of you who are going to tell me how badly screwed up socialized medicine might become?

I completely understand those complaints.

I quite agree that socialized medicine might become a total nightmare. Doesn't have to, but it certainly could if done badly.

But folks, what we have now is becoming a nightmare, too, and that trend is not going to get any better if we do nothing.

A 300% increase in percertages of GDP spend on healthcare in 30 years?

And in the meanwhile people's health care insurance is becoming less and less useful to them?!

That kind of growth in the aggregate cost of health care is just NOT sustainable.

I think you're alone in advocating socialized medicine, and the reason is in your post: It could become a nightmare.

Do we want to trade a nightmare for an even worse nightmare?

You make a good case that a fundamental change is necessary, but socializing the system? When has socialized anything worked?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Okay, now to be fair there needs to be an appreciation of the methodology and as this report points out, it's not an exact science



The World Health Report 2000: Can Health Care Systems Be Compared Using a Single Measure of Performance?

And all the info is here

WHO | World Health Statistics 2008

Just while you're waiting I mean.

This sounds like some wild goose chase to me. Check this out: Featured Article - WSJ.com

TORONTO--"I haven't seen 'Sicko,' " says Avril Allen about the new Michael Moore documentary, which advocates socialized medicine for the United States. The film, which has been widely viewed on the Internet, and which will officially open in the U.S. and Canada on Friday, has been getting rave reviews. But Ms. Allen, a lawyer, has no plans to watch it. She's just too busy preparing to file suit against Ontario's provincial government about its health-care system next month.

Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous.

Ms. Allen figures the lawsuit has a fighting chance: In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "access to wait lists is not access to health care," striking down key Quebec laws that prohibited private medicine and private health insurance....

This problem hit close to home last year: A relative, living in Winnipeg, nearly died of a strangulated bowel while lying on a stretcher for five hours, writhing in pain. To get the needed ultrasound, he was sent by ambulance to another hospital.

In Britain, the Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients wait more than a year for surgery. Around the time Mr. Moore was putting the finishing touches on his documentary, a hospital in Sutton Coldfield announced its new money-saving linen policy: Housekeeping will no longer change the bed sheets between patients, just turn them over. France's system failed so spectacularly in the summer heat of 2003 that 13,000 people died, largely of dehydration. Hospitals stopped answering the phones and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.

With such problems, it's not surprising that people are looking for alternatives. Private clinics--some operating in a "gray zone" of the law--are now opening in Canada at a rate of about one per week.

 

[Care4all]

I think you're alone in advocating socialized medicine, and the reason is in your post: It could become a nightmare.

Do we want to trade a nightmare for an even worse nightmare?

You make a good case that a fundamental change is necessary, but socializing the system? When has socialized anything worked?

the post offices, our highways, our dams, our water and our sewer systems, our oil pipelines and gas pipelines and our police are all socialized things that have worked....imo....though admittingly these other socialized programs are so much less complicated than instituting a one payer healthcare plan that cuts out the middle man, the insurance companies.

 

[editec]

I think you're alone in advocating socialized medicine, and the reason is in your post: It could become a nightmare.

Do we want to trade a nightmare for an even worse nightmare?

You make a good case that a fundamental change is necessary, but socializing the system? When has socialized anything worked?

Roads, the military, education, the FCC, just a few off the top of my head.

 

[9 Volt]

This sounds like some wild goose chase to me. Check this out: Featured Article - WSJ.com

TORONTO--"I haven't seen 'Sicko,' " says Avril Allen about the new Michael Moore documentary, which advocates socialized medicine for the United States. The film, which has been widely viewed on the Internet, and which will officially open in the U.S. and Canada on Friday, has been getting rave reviews. But Ms. Allen, a lawyer, has no plans to watch it. She's just too busy preparing to file suit against Ontario's provincial government about its health-care system next month.

Her client, Lindsay McCreith, would have had to wait for four months just to get an MRI, and then months more to see a neurologist for his malignant brain tumor. Instead, frustrated and ill, the retired auto-body shop owner traveled to Buffalo, N.Y., for a lifesaving surgery. Now he's suing for the right to opt out of Canada's government-run health care, which he considers dangerous.

Ms. Allen figures the lawsuit has a fighting chance: In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "access to wait lists is not access to health care," striking down key Quebec laws that prohibited private medicine and private health insurance....

This problem hit close to home last year: A relative, living in Winnipeg, nearly died of a strangulated bowel while lying on a stretcher for five hours, writhing in pain. To get the needed ultrasound, he was sent by ambulance to another hospital.

In Britain, the Department of Health recently acknowledged that one in eight patients wait more than a year for surgery. Around the time Mr. Moore was putting the finishing touches on his documentary, a hospital in Sutton Coldfield announced its new money-saving linen policy: Housekeeping will no longer change the bed sheets between patients, just turn them over. France's system failed so spectacularly in the summer heat of 2003 that 13,000 people died, largely of dehydration. Hospitals stopped answering the phones and ambulance attendants told people to fend for themselves.

With such problems, it's not surprising that people are looking for alternatives. Private clinics--some operating in a "gray zone" of the law--are now opening in Canada at a rate of about one per week.

This article is from the WSJ. Of course this will be their view. Besides, the Canadian courts found it unconstitutional to enforce a single-payer system without allowing residents to seek private coverage as an alternative, not to mention that most physicians there run private practices..which goes back to my original post. I don't understand why this scares people so badly. You would still be free to "take care of yourself", besides, again, neither candidate is advocating socialized medicine..., It's moot.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This article is from the WSJ. Of course this will be their view. Besides, the Canadian courts found it unconstitutional to enforce a single-payer system without allowing residents to seek private coverage as an alternative, not to mention that most physicians there run private practices..which goes back to my original post. I don't understand why this scares people so badly. You would still be free to "take care of yourself", besides, again, neither candidate is advocating socialized medicine..., It's moot.

I was merely answering to one our board members who thought the systems in England and Canada were much better than that of the U.S.