United States Healthcare Reform

[Andy_Bates]

In the US it clearly doesn’t benefit all poor people. If you can’t afford the health care you don’t get it.

Yes, people who can’t afford to pay for something don’t get it. That’s pretty much true by definition. But it doesn’t mean that poor people don’t also benefit from the U.S. medical system.

In the evil socialised system everyone pulls together through their taxes to help each other out so even Baby Jonny Mc’Poor Pants has a chance of getting the treatment he needs. This seems fairer, no?

Define “fairer.” If you’re arguing that socialism is by definition “fairer,”*then that’s a whole separate argument.

Quibble with the stats all you want but you are doodling in the margins of the giant facts that health care in the US doesn’t achieve massively better outcomes overall, for the extra cash spent. Where is this inefficiency coming from?

I sense that the goalposts are moving. First you said that the U.S. gets “the same or worse outcomes overall”; now you’re wondering why the U.S. doesn’t have “massively better outcomes.”*Look, I don’t dispute that the U.S. healthcare system is too expensive; I just disagree with the claim that it also has worse performance than other countries.

I think that it is fair that each person, from birth, should have an equal chance to succeed. This is the American dream is it not? Unequal distribution of things like healthcare helps give the children with a richer start a much greater chance of succeeding in life. If you don’t agree with giving someone a fair start in life then I don’t know what else to say to you.

The American dream is that everyone has a chance to succeed, not that everyone has an equal chance to succeed. People who start off richer are necessarily going to have benefits in more than healthcare. Some people are born taller, or stronger, or smarter, or richer or better looking or with better parents or in a better area. No one ever said that everyone should start off with the exact same circumstances. That’s not how life works.

[Hawkeye_Fierce]

So that whole “created equal” thing doesn’t carry much weight with you, huh?

[Enidigm]

The perfect analogy to describe why supporting public health care as good policy instead of what we have now finally struck me: highways.

Imagine the insanity of a system where all highways were privately owned and maintained, the endless number of toll booths, the crazy ineffeciency of two competing parallel highways going to and from the same places, a quarter of a mile apart. The enormous amount of waste, redundency and profit taking this would entail and how unfair the distribution of highways would be, and most of all how much more expensive it would be to use them.

[RSofaer]

The same result at a higher cost IS a worse outcome.

[Pogo]

Yeah, Andy is Brett. He ignored the part where someone owned his facts in the fucking face and went back to opining.

Seriously, stop getting your source of information from Glenn fucking Beck, you twats.

[Andy_Bates]

Similarly, your story about “some countries” not reporting a live birth if the baby is born alive but below a certain size. Which countries are those, exactly? Who are these careless statisticians, recklessly ignoring differences in tabulation? Or perhaps deliberately skewing the results in order to make the United States look bad? Hmm, let’s see what those raging left-wing radicals over at the CIA have to say on the subject:

This story about “some countries” not measuring infant mortality properly in exactly the kind of thing that people go for when they are looking for confirmation of their existing beliefs, not facts. But there’s a reason “talking points” is a pejorative term. They’re things that sound like evidence but only if you don’t care to investigate further. They allow you to tell yourself a story about narrow-minded idiots on “the other side” just not being willing to look at the real facts, while attending only to those facts that appear to confirm your prejudices.

See, I figured that if I had the statistics handy, I would be accused of just trotting out the talking points. But since you asked: According to the World Health Organization, all babies showing any signs of life should be counted as a live birth. That is the standard that the U.S. uses. However, other countries do not use the same standard. Switzerland does not count deaths of babies shorter than 30 cm. According to UNICEF, in former Soviet countries a child born at less than 28 weeks, less than 1000 grams, or shorter than 35 cm is not counted as a live birth if it dies within seven days. Because they want to keep infant mortality rates low, those deaths are counted as miscarriages or stillbirths. In Austria, Germany, and Canada, the baby must be at least a pound to be considered a live birth.

I agree that people on opposite sides of an argument should actually try to engage with each other, to find out what other people are thinking, that stepping out of the echo-chamber of a like-minded community and hearing genuinely different views is valuable and important. It is narrow-minded just to ignore anyone who says something you think is misguided or foolish or wrong.

I realize that. That’s why I try to offer differing opinions in what seems like a very like-minded community. I also try to be receptive to other viewpoints.

[Andy_Bates]

It’s not that your opinion differs. It’s that you obviously have almost no grasp on this issue. You’re trotting out the typical conservative line of “look rich Canadians come to America so we must be doing great!” without displaying any awareness of how much of an irrelevant non sequitur this is.

Many people claim that A) U.S. healthcare costs are much too high, and B) our healthcare quality is much worse than the rest of the world. If a high-ranking Canadian official has to come to America for surgery, then it is completely relevant to B, especially if he was unable to get the needed surgery in Canada due to rationing or expected results.

edit: your further posts to this thread pretty much prove my point. You’re doing nothing but repeating conservative talking points while avoiding discussing the actual issue of healthcare reform. Those talking points are at best misleading, and at worse outright lies.

One man’s “facts and statistics” are another man’s “talking points.” If I am stating facts that are in error, then please, point out what they are. But saying, “You’re just repeating conservative talking points” doesn’t help the conversation. The progressive talking points are “The U.S. healthcare system costs too much and doesn’t provide healthcare to the poor,” but I don’t discount those arguments on that basis.

[Andy_Bates]

The Republicans were in a better marketing position and they played it the right way. The Democrats could try and spin the obstruction argument at this point, but they’d have to do it just right, and I haven’t gotten the impression that the entire left wing is any good at all at making ads that play outside of their base, particularly on this issue.

The Democrats had the votes to ram healthcare through, but they didn’t. Healthcare reform wasn’t held up because of obstruction by Republicans; it was held up because of deal-making and bargaining with “blue-dog”*Democrats.

[Andy_Bates]

Whatever else is going on, I doubt it’s people’s real opinions about health care. The public is tremendously misinformed about the bill.

It’s hard to be informed when you haven’t read the bill, and I think it’s telling that Democrats have been quoted saying, “Of course we haven’t read the bill. No one has.” People are wary (justifiably or not) of passing something that most people haven’t read.

[Andy_Bates]

So that whole “created equal” thing doesn’t carry much weight with you, huh?

…that they have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you want to argue that “created equal” means that everyone starts off with the same opportunities and advantages, that is trivially disprovable.

[jeffd]

Many people claim that A) U.S. healthcare costs are much too high, and B) our healthcare quality is much worse than the rest of the world. If a high-ranking Canadian official has to come to America for surgery, then it is completely relevant to B, especially if he was unable to get the needed surgery in Canada due to rationing or expected results.

On the off chance that you’re not just a conservative demagogue, I’ll give this a shot;

What knowledgeable people claim isn’t that our “quality is much worse.” That’s a strawman you’ve constructed - either because you don’t understand the issue, or because you don’t want to address the actual arguments.

The actual argument is:

a) US healthcare costs are too high.
b) US healthcare costs are increasing at an unsustainable rate (roughly 8% annually)
c) US healthcare outcomes worse than most other developed nations.

c) is mostly a byproduct of a).

In other words, while it is true that healthcare for an individual in the United States is about as good as it gets, this is only true if you can afford healthcare. If you cannot afford to participate in the system, the quality of the healthcare you receive deteriorates rapidly. Because of how expensive our system is, lots of people cannot afford healthcare. Because of the rapid growth of healthcare costs, more and more people cannot afford healthcare.

A ridiculous hypothetical demonstrates the problem: If the current system continues to develop on its present trajectory unchecked, there will come a time when only multi-millionaires receive healthcare. Everyone else will be left with emergency-room stabilization only (contrary to popular beliefs emergency rooms are not obligated to provide treatment per se; their only obligation is to stabilize anyone who comes in with a life-threatening condition).

It’s hard to be informed when you haven’t read the bill, and I think it’s telling that Democrats have been quoted saying, “Of course we haven’t read the bill. No one has.” People are wary (justifiably or not) of passing something that most people haven’t read.

Christ, the whole “read the bill” nonsense. You really are a caricature.

[Andy_Bates]

Yeah, Andy is Brett. He ignored the part where someone owned his facts in the fucking face and went back to opining.

I’d like to see the evidence that Brett and I are the same person. What, there can’t be two conservatives on the same discussion group?

[Hawkeye_Fierce]

…that they have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you want to argue that “created equal” means that everyone starts off with the same opportunities and advantages, that is trivially disprovable.

So you’re arguing for an aristocracy, right? Some people are just born better, so why shouldn’t they have greater access to privileges?

[WarrenM]

I’d like to see the evidence that Brett and I are the same person. What, there can’t be two conservatives on the same discussion group?

There can be, sure, but your particular flavor of stupid tastes familiar.

[Andy_Bates]

In other words, while it is true that healthcare for an individual in the United States is about as good as it gets, this is only true if you can afford healthcare.

Fair enough. I have heard it said that the quality of U.S. healthcare is worse than other countries in absolute terms (survival rates, infant mortality, and so on), and many people seem to think that, irrespective of costs, U.S. healthcare is worse.

Christ, the whole “read the bill” nonsense. You really are a caricature.

Why is it so outrageous to expect that leaders would actually read a bill that they are voting on? When the President is touting transparency and openness, it seems like understanding the issues presented in the bill would be a good first step.

[Andy_Bates]

So you’re arguing for an aristocracy, right? Some people are just born better, so why shouldn’t they have greater access to privileges?

No. Aristocracy is where certain privileges are given to those who are perceived to be intrinsically “better”; I am saying that some people are born with privileges that others don’t have, which means by definition that they have greater access to those privileges. I did not say or imply that that makes them intrinsically “better” than anyone else.

[jeffd]

Fair enough. I have heard it said that the quality of U.S. healthcare is worse than other countries in absolute terms (survival rates, infant mortality, and so on), and many people seem to think that, irrespective of costs, U.S. healthcare is worse.

As far as I can tell, your problem is that you are not being very precise about a technical subject. You’re not alone there; most people on these boards (both for and against HCR) are not very precise.

That being said - by most metrics (including the ones you mentioned) the US HCR system ranks toward the bottom of the list of developed nations. For example: infant mortality. The US ranks 32nd. That list includes all nations, of course.

Why is it so outrageous to expect that leaders would actually read a bill that they are voting on? When the President is touting transparency and openness, it seems like understanding the issues presented in the bill would be a good first step.

Bills are effectively written in a foreign language.

[Wallapuctus]

No. Aristocracy is where certain privileges are given to those who are perceived to be intrinsically “better”; I am saying that some people are born with privileges that others don’t have, which means by definition that they have greater access to those privileges. I did not say or imply that that makes them intrinsically “better” than anyone else.

Actually that’s exactly what you’re saying. Read it again.

[Andy_Bates]

There can be, sure, but your particular flavor of stupid tastes familiar.

Perhaps your arrogance has something to do with it.

[Andy_Bates]

Actually that’s exactly what you’re saying. Read it again.

No, it’s not. If child A is born to rich parents, and child B is born to poor parents, then A will necessarily have greater access to money than B will. That doesn’t mean that A is better than B. If you say that all people should have equal access to benefits, then you are saying that A and B should start their lives with the same amount of money, which is just not realistic.