Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

I suggest that if there is evidence for something not working, it is the current system.

I quite agree that the current system has major problems. As I explicitly noted in my previous reply, I was responding to something you quoted, namely:

Yet the part of America’s health care system that consumers like best is the government-run part.

But this gets confusing. Let me put it this way.

Neither:

the existence of a more or less working or well liked government program

nor

the obvious major flaws in the current medical system

demonstrate that

the current government can initiate a major new medical program that works better or is well liked.

On the contrary, I claim, as I have claimed before, that any major program that the government creates will be worse than whatever we have now, given the inordinate amount of industry capture of both congress (via corruption and campaign contributions) and the publics understanding (via propaganda and mass media cooption.)

If the Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and General Attorney for some company you own turn out to be lying, corrupt, thieving scoundrels in cahoots, do you allow them any more rope to "fix" the problems they have helped cause, or do you first run them out of town on a rail before attempting to clean up the mess?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

And by the way, a few years one way or the other in life expectancy don't prove much in my book. It seems that smaller or more homogenous countries have a distinct advantage in that statistic.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

I quite agree that the current system has major problems. As I explicitly noted in my previous reply, I was responding to something you quoted, namely:


But this gets confusing. Let me put it this way.

Neither:

the existence of a more or less working or well liked government program

nor

the obvious major flaws in the current medical system

demonstrate that

the current government can initiate a major new medical program that works better or is well liked.

On the contrary, I claim, as I have claimed before, that any major program that the government creates will be worse than whatever we have now, given the inordinate amount of industry capture of both congress (via corruption and campaign contributions) and the publics understanding (via propaganda and mass media cooption.)

If the Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer and General Attorney for some company you own turn out to be lying, corrupt, thieving scoundrels in cahoots, do you allow them any more rope to "fix" the problems they have helped cause, or do you first run them out of town on a rail before attempting to clean up the mess?

Being a major cynic regarding the US democracy and its capture by the oligarchs and the ignorance of the populace, I cannot disagree with your logic.

There might be an answer in your analogy of "some company." In the instance of a corrupted government, it would mean re-electing NO career politicians, and after once being elected for most it becomes a career aspiration. Though how many elections would it take to actually get around to no incumbents being re-elected, and beyond that even new electees would be in somebodies' pockets by the time they took their hand off whatever is used for the swearing in.

Short of nuclear attack on Washington when congress is in session or a successful anthrax attack or its equivalent during a state of the union address, then next most likely thing that would change Washington would be about 500 Walt Kowalskis as was Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino and I write all that with 100% seriousness.

Alternatively, raja, could crank up his printer and write 531 letters to Washington daily--good luck raja.

Alternatively, surely the SOB's in Washington can come up with something better that the current morass that exists with health care and financially backstopping the finanacial system. But perhaps my use of "surely" is naive.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

Alternatively, surely the SOB's in Washington can come up with something better that the current morass that exists with health care and financially backstopping the finanacial system. But perhaps my use of "surely" is naive.

It sure sounds naive to me ;).

Hopefully, either we don't get to find out, or I get proven wrong.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

How this for a system that's not working?

SHOULD CHARITY HOSPITALS BE CHARITABLE?

"As Lily Tomlin says, "No matter how cynical you get, it's almost impossible to keep up."

The truth of Tomlin's observation struck me when I read that lobbyists for America's charity hospitals are campaigning to kill reform legislation that would require charity-care hospitals to provide – get this – charity care. I sat there blinking for a while, thinking: you mean they don't?

As it turns out, no. Although they're called "charity hospitals," and although they are tax-exempt and they get some six-billon dollars a year worth of special tax breaks on the grounds that they provide free health care for low-income folks – they either don't, or provide very-little. In fact, it's hard today to tell the difference between these non-profit entities and your run-of-the-mill for-profit hospital chains. The charitable outfits often turn away the poor from the hospital doors, and when they do provide treatment, they're likely to use nasty, bullying tactics to try to collect money from the poor."

Full article: http://www.jimhightower.com/node/6918

[santafe2]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

After the needless death of his father, the author, a business executive, began a personal exploration of a health-care industry that for years has delivered poor service and irregular quality at astonishingly high cost. It is a system, he argues, that is not worth preserving in anything like its current form. And the health-care reform now being contemplated will not fix it. Here’s a radical solution to an agonizing problem.

Can we agree that the opening of this article is a bit presumptive? I'm sorry the author lost his father but how does that correlate to a sub-standard health system? The opening is so self centered, I can't imagine taking the time to read the author's point of view.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

Can we agree that the opening of this article is a bit presumptive? I'm sorry the author lost his father but how does that correlate to a sub-standard health system? The opening is so self centered, I can't imagine taking the time to read the author's point of view.

I can understand how a pseudo-intellectual can reach such a conclusion.

[iyamwutiam]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

I can understand how a pseudo-intellectual can reach such a conclusion.

LOL

I am not sure why the movie Sicko- hasn't started American citizens to take time out to responsibly look into this issue. Apparently -it is better spent worrying about Citibank than the health and welfare of our children/families and countrymen.

[Ghent12]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

And by the way, a few years one way or the other in life expectancy don't prove much in my book. It seems that smaller or more homogenous countries have a distinct advantage in that statistic.

Indeed. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Now, if those life expectancy numbers include our murder rate (which it technically should), we are actually doing very very well with life expectancy from a health-care standpoint.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita


Next statistic please!

[iyamwutiam]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

Indeed. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Now, if those life expectancy numbers include our murder rate (which it technically should), we are actually doing very very well with life expectancy from a health-care standpoint.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita


I figured this would be for YOU

http://www.angrywhiteguy.com/?p=3616

read the article -I mean it -you guys do see things pretty similarly

Now why are Native American who has the lowest cancer rate and low murder rate in the country live the shortest amount of time? Two reasons really, the first is alcoholism and suicide. Native Americans have the highest alcoholism rate in the country 10% of all Native Americans has a problem with alcoholism… and the second reason they have the highest suicide rate as a ethnic group, after all alcohol is a depressant. But the real kicker is they have taxpayer funded, government run health care which has been identified as the worst health care in the country and only slightly ahead of the VA both which is government ran, government funded national health care… and the morons on the left want the same poor service for you. An idiot and his health is soon parted.

Next statistic please!

Of course -he may miss the obvious facts - but hey -it goes to show you -that even the superficia argument can be made to have force.

[BuckarooBanzai]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

If you think you as a voter in the US have something to say about the modification of the present health care system such that it would focus primarily on providing healthcare that serves people while not further driving the country into financial oblivion vs. providing profits to vested interest groups, I submit you are an IDIOT.

Actually, the definition of an idiot is someone who believes that the government can run an insurance program better than the private sector can.

It is AXIOMATIC that the federal government is always the high-cost, low-efficiency provider for absolutely everything. Why on earth would you want them running health care?

The problem is not who runs the health insurance scheme, but the idea of health insurance itself. Health care is a NON-INSURABLE RISK. It cannot be done. Impossible. Cash-for-services is the only efficient financial basis under which health care services can be delivered.

The europeans have their heads up their ass, as usual. My ancestors LEFT EUROPE because they wanted to get away from the jackasses running that continent into the ground. And now we want to emulate them?

Ridiculous.

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

Actually, the definition of an idiot is someone who believes that the government can run an insurance program better than the private sector can.

Better than this?

"Health Net, which admitted offering bonuses to employees for finding reasons to cancel policies, was fined 1 million dollars."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...702455_pf.html

[MulaMan]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

Yes you need to define "better"?

A public health plan in competition with private is the way to go.

Why do you think the health insurance companies HATE the public option and are spending something like 150 million to sink it?

Would you guess because they know it will bring in much more competition and do you think they are spending the money as a public service or to protect thier monopolies?

[c1ue]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

And by the way, a few years one way or the other in life expectancy don't prove much in my book. It seems that smaller or more homogenous countries have a distinct advantage in that statistic.

Life expectancy by itself certainly doesn't mean that much, but what about life expectancy divided by $ spent per head?

The US as a nation in health care is exactly like California in education: spends the most and gets the poorest relative results.

Some of this spending is due to the US being the richest, but the US also spends the most relative to GDP of any other nation yet gets by far a mediocre result (at best).

This is the issue that needs to be addressed.

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

cost_longlife75.gif

Now I'm not saying we need to be Cuba, but it seems obvious to me that there is something very wrong with health care in the US vs. the entire rest of the world.

The opening is so self centered, I can't imagine taking the time to read the author's point of view.

Clearly the facts of the article were not read - even the nice excerpt I put out for the masses. Read, then criticize.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Interesting overview of American health care: present status, history and causes

Now I'm not saying we need to be Cuba, but it seems obvious to me that there is something very wrong with health care in the US vs. the entire rest of the world.

Nice graph (other than the detail that the non-zero based axis for "Average Life Expectancy" exagerates that side quite a bit.)

I entirely agree that something is very wrong with health care in the U.S. vs. the rest of the world.

I would feel more confident of being able to help my next door neighbor if he purchased a kit airplane:



assembled it while on an LSD trip and then asked me to help him fix it after he crashed it in his first attempt to fly it,
than I feel confident I can unravel the problems or propose solutions for the U.S. health care industry.