patrick.net

MarkInSF says

That’s even better than Glen Beck telling his audience that he educated himself on the evils of Progressivism at the public library.
“It’s Free!”

Wow, libraries are run by the Federal government? Or... The "government" runs libraries well, so therefore the "government" will run health care well? Who knew!

US is 33rd in infant mortality rates. You're right, much better than 37th.

Who cares what Sarah Palin says. Its not like she's going to fix things or make things worse either. She'll do what the corporations tell her to do. So listen to the corporations instead. Same thing goes for any politician!

"Lifestyle and cultural issues"? Please. USA sucks so bad because not enough people are doing regular checkups and catching things EARLY because they are not insured.

I find the infant mortality issue hard to reconcile. Seems like a system in which masses of uninsured underclass don't get proper prenatal care, is arriving at the same pile of dead babies that they wanted to save? It's very confusing to me that the NeoCons oppose a system in which preventive medicine reaches everyone. I see it as rationalizing loathing of poor people into "God's will".

tatupu70 says

US is 33rd in infant mortality rates. You’re right, much better than 37th.

Sigh. This one makes me extremely angry any time it is trotted out because it is so devious. What is pushing up the infant mortality rate in the US is low birth rate, acknowledged in this report:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6219&type=0

“Low birthweight is the primary risk factor for infant mortality and most of the decline in neonatal mortality (deaths of infants less than 28 days old) in the United States since 1970 can be attributed to increased rates of survival among low-birthweight newborns. Indeed, comparisons with countries for which data are available suggest that low birthweight newborns have better chances of survival in the United States than elsewhere. ”

Doesn’t that strike you as odd? Babies in the highest risk group for infant mortality have a BETTER chance for survival in the United States? Somehow that doesn’t seem to jive with the propaganda that we’ve been fed telling us that babies die because our health care system sucks.

Oh, but it gets better. If you read further in that report, we find out that the reason for the high infant mortality in the US is that more low birth weight babies are born. In fact, a baby born with low birth weight is 37 times more likely to die within 28 days than one with normal weight, here: http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/34415043/Effect-of-low-birth-weight-on-infant-mortality-Analysis-Using-Weibull-Hazard-Model

37 times more likely to die. Keep that number in mind. That’s 97% of infant mortality attributable to a single cause.

“Aha”, the vigilant socialist says, “those low birth weights wouldn’t be happening if our medical care didn’t suck so much!” Not quite. There are many risk factors for low birth weight. Smoking, multiple births, alcohol, and socioeconomic background can all be risk factors. The biggest overall factor is teenage pregnancy. Guess which country has the highest rate of teenage live births. Anyone?
http://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/pdf/repcard3e.pdf

Take a look at page 6. I would have liked to have had more recent data, but scattered references seemed to suggest that there was a slight increase in the last 10 years. The next closest nation, the UK, has only about 60% as many, and it drops off quite a bit more after that. Much of the difference can be attributed to a higher rate of abortion in those nations, especially among teens.

So, in essence, if universal healthcare in the US is going to tackle the problem of infant mortality, its first task will be to prevent teen pregnancy while promoting more abortions among this troubled age group.

Do you understand why I’m angry now? They lie. They know the facts, or they would if they studied it for any reasonable amount of time, but cherry pick the truth to present the picture they want to promote. It is sickening.

For a little more color read "The Infant Mortality Crises" by Murray Rothbard :

http://mises.org/Econsense/ch15.asp

So infant mortality is all about "lifestyle choice" of one flavor or another? Another factor may be the rapid increase in rates of early induced labor and Cesarian sections.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-11-15-sections_x.htm

CBOE---

I understand what you are saying but I don't agree with the cause/effect that you are proposing. I would argue that poor pre-natal care among uninsured is a strong factor in low birthweight babies and infant mortality.

Preventing teen pregnancy is certainly an admirable goal, but how about making sure pregnant teen receive proper prenatal care also?

Forget all the B.S. you people. What is going to happen if/when all these uninsured start to go the doctor en masse. Its already crowded. And who says the problem is uninsured people who would otherwise go to the doctor are going to the E.R.?? Have you all seen the majority of people in E.R.'s?? Mostly drunks, drugs abusers and gangbangers, and if you dont beleive me ask someone who works in your local county hospital. That is not going to change anytime soon. So what we will have is crowded E.R.'s and crowded doctors office. Gee thanks, Obama.

Oh, no, sick people are accessing medical services and getting better! Gee, thanks Obama.

This debate is liberalism vs. conservatism in a nutshell. Liberals ask "can't the government do something?" while conservatives desire returning to the good old days of the 1800s when rich people prospered and poor people just f---ed off and died already.

I consider my view on this entirely pragmatic: government's economic mission should be to guarantee access to the goods and services necessary to become -- and remain -- a productive member of society, without regard to ability to pay. Health care. Police and disaster services. Education. Local transportation.

This requires mildly redistributive taxes to pay for all this of course; conservatives are under the mistaken belief that low taxes results in greater economic freedom and a higher standard of living. I think they are ignoring the effect the real estate market has on wealth distribution.

Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and the economy eventually took off in the latter half of the 90s. Bush cut taxes 2001-2003 and home values went to the sky -- skyrocketing housing costs simply erased any takehome income gains created by these tax cuts, making them worse than useless.

The bottom line is that all taxes, in the end, come out of rents (and land values). This is why the high-tax "hellholes" up in Eurosocialist land function as well as they do. This is just my theory, but I don't see anything that contradicts it. The Real Estate sector is an immense parasitical drag on the actual wealth-producing economy, even greater than health care (which while health care doesn't necessarily produce new wealth it does at least restore it).

Troy says

Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and the economy eventually took off in the latter half of the 90s.

Post hoc ergo proptor hoc? The explosion of the tech/telecom industry had nothing to do with it? The popping of that bubble started well before Clinton left office, so does he get the blame for that as well?

Vicente says

“Lifestyle and cultural issues”? Please.

You are welcome to do the research itself, though it should be pretty obvious: certain lifestyles in certain cultures lead to higher incidence of certain diseases, sicknesses, etc. You really disagree?

tatupu70 says

I understand what you are saying but I don’t agree with the cause/effect that you are proposing. I would argue that poor pre-natal care among uninsured is a strong factor in low birthweight babies and infant mortality.
Preventing teen pregnancy is certainly an admirable goal, but how about making sure pregnant teen receive proper prenatal care also?

This is all part of the point, Tat. Yes, it would be good to make sure pregnant teens receive proper prenatal care as well, but the societal/cultural factor is also a confounding variable in the comparison to other countries. Do the research. I don't expect you would change your opinions on the overall issue, for what I consider noble reasons, but you might not be so trusting of all of the data/statistics that get thrown out there.

Forget all the B.S., what I am worried about is what happens when all these uninsured start going to the doctor. Its already over-crowded the few times I go to my doctor. Luckily I havent had to go to the emergency recently, but does anybody really think people are just going to magically start going to the doctor on a regular basis so that they will catch all these diseases/conditions before the emergency room visit?? On what basis are we making that assumption. Just look at the people in the emergency rooms for gods sake (drunks, gang members, etc.)!!

Paralithodes says

elliemae says
funny, I didn’t see the white house quoted in this article. In fact, I looked on three pages of google searches before I got bored, with none of the results being white house oriented. In fact, the only mention of politics was by Wellpoint, bitching that they’d have to raise premiums if the democrats had their way… I guess that they’d have to raise thier rates in order to continue to rake in huge profits. But do tell us how the white house manipulated this information and the media chose not to report the facts.
Even funnier, I found direct White House references to Wellpoint in the second entry on the very first page of a Google search, simply using “White House Wellpoint” as the search term.
“http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/11/when-health-insurance-companies-attack

The White House didn't create the story, but it did make references to it. Unfortunately, the pesky media found the story first. I guess that the White House shouldn't refer to it even though it's topical? Sure, some of the profits are a result of the sale of a unit. But Wellpoint made huge profits, in part by denying benefits to people based on pre-existing conditions. It's a huge for-profit corporation with the goal of making money - what better way to do it than to do so at the expense of those people who need its services the most?

Troy says

This debate is liberalism vs. conservatism in a nutshell. Liberals ask “can’t the government do something?” while conservatives

Ask: can't WE THE PEOPLE do something rather than relying on Uncle Sam and Big Brother to take care of us? Lets start a charity. Lets get together some doctors, nurses etc... to set up free clinics for those in need. Lets allow people to write off the cost of their health care so they are not taxed on being healthy. Lets let non-profit charitable organizations run hospitals.

Then liberals come along with all those rules and regulations making it nearly impossible for anyone but the government and the mega corporations to run health care operations. Costs skyrocket, small clinics close and access is curtailed. Sorry, but big brother and uncle sam don't solve or fix any problem that you and I can't fix if we work together in our local communities to do so. Why not do that first?

by the way Troy, I guess you didn't really mean it when you said your last post was on March 13th. So why should we believe anything you say?

Ummm, yes charity will be lining up to provide you treatment for MS. I suspect not.

AdHominem says

I guess you didn’t really mean it when you said your last post was on March 13th. So why should we believe anything you say?

An actual ad hominem attack from AdHominem. This is my surprised face.

But you're right. I'm wasting too much valuable time here going around in pointless argumentation and do want to sign off. Maybe this one will be it . . .

AdHominem says

Ask: can’t WE THE PEOPLE do something rather than relying on Uncle Sam and Big Brother to take care of us?

No, "we" can't because "we" are stupid, lazy, and apathetic (obviously not all of us, but enough to make things difficult)

Kevin says

AdHominem says

Ask: can’t WE THE PEOPLE do something rather than relying on Uncle Sam and Big Brother to take care of us?

No, “we” can’t because “we” are stupid, lazy, and apathetic (obviously not all of us, but enough to make things difficult)

If you're gonna describe me, you forgot middle-aged, overweight and bitter. I'm getting a bumper sticker made that says that.

Haven't they already done that - built the world a home and furnished it with love? You should have plenty of time, then.

elliemae says

The White House didn’t create the story, but it did make references to it. Unfortunately, the pesky media found the story first. I guess that the White House shouldn’t refer to it even though it’s topical?

The WH and others in the Administration like Kathleen Sebelius specifically pointed out Wellpoint without the full context, in an entirely misleading way. Yes, they shouldn't have referred to it, because there was nothing to specifically refer to without being misleading. If the truth is on your side in the issue, then why lie?

elliemae says

Sure, some of the profits are a result of the sale of a unit. But Wellpoint made huge profits

Some? How about the vast majority? Wellpoint made "huge profits" simply because they had "huge revenue." Their profit margin (not counting a one-time sale of a huge business unit) has been typically between 2-5%. Is that a "huge" profit margin? Have you taken an accounting and/or finance class?

Para,

Unfortunately you have accurately diagnosed the basic mindset of the average liberal, as demonstrated on this site. They are the epitomy of the pot calling the kettle black. When fox news uses propoganda, they yell bloody murder, but when the propoganda supports their politics, they fail to even acknowledge the propoganda.

The democratic brainwashing machine is a powerful force.

Pot, meet kettle.

Paralithodes says

The WH and others in the Administration like Kathleen Sebelius specifically pointed out Wellpoint without the full context, in an entirely misleading way. Yes, they shouldn’t have referred to it, because there was nothing to specifically refer to without being misleading. If the truth is on your side in the issue, then why lie?

My lord, you have really beaten this into the ground. WH just repeated exactly what Wellpoint had reported as their earnings. How is that a "lie"?? I would argue that it was Wellpoint that was deceiving in its earnings report. Blaming the WH is a stretch.

Paralithodes says

Some? How about the vast majority? Wellpoint made “huge profits” simply because they had “huge revenue.” Their profit margin (not counting a one-time sale of a huge business unit) has been typically between 2-5%. Is that a “huge” profit margin? Have you taken an accounting and/or finance class?

OK--if you really want to dig into the numbers on this, let's look at what % of Wellpoint's costs are for actually providing healthcare. How much is overhead? What is their cash flow? I'm sure insurance companies do everything they can to hide profits with all the attention on them.

Here's the thing about Wellpoint and their crazy increase in fees: they have to do it because they are working with a population increasingly composed of those who would not do without health insurance because they know that given their health status, they must have insurance because they will be needing some health care. Where are the healthy people? Well, some of them are opting out entirely, and others are going with cheaper, catastrophic health insurance plans which cost less and don't cover day-to-day issues, unless their day-to-day issues include being hit by a truck.

And that is the vector in this. Insurance costs go up, healthy people and their employers opt out of full insurance in order to control costs, lather, rinse, repeat. Unless they are immortal, the healthy people will become less healthy at some point, but if they are not able or not choosing to fund preventive care, they may not know it for awhile, and by then they will be sicker than they might have been otherwise, and whatever is wrong with them will cost more to address than it might have otherwise.

Thus there is real value in creating a situation that will allow more people--including healthy people--to buy and to afford more complete health insurance packages. When the insurance companies have a larger pool of subscribers, a pool of subscribers which includes healthy people as well as people with illness, the insurance companies have a more workable, stable business situation. When people out in the world have better access to health care--including those early doctor visits which allow them to ask that important question, or perhaps to notice and derail the kind of weight gain that leads to diabetes, heart disease, etc--those people get to lead healthier, fuller lives, and they are more likely to be productive in society, and, oh yeah, their health care costs will be lower and more predictable over time.

I don't think Wellpoint is the devil, but clearly their subscribers cannot continue to accept 39% yearly increases, and if the subscribers cannot accept those increases, then that company and others like it will need to come up with another solution. Something closer to universal coverage (in any of a number of possible business structures) would help to change the current vector in such a way that the companies may survive...and the people, too.

This seems logical to me. I don't see why people are getting so upset about it, or why it is a partisan issue.

Sad. I have read the comments, and it is apparent that most of you on both sides have been sucked in by the puppet masters in DC. HCR is nothing but a hot button issue to keep folks divided and interested so the respective parties can still get their votes. There is no "health care crisis". It is all made up hype, just like the supposed impending collapse of the financial markets. Follow the money - how have the financial stocks done since the bailout? How have the insurance companies stocks done since HCR passed? Bottom line is HCR does absolutely nothing to change the status quo - large companies will get richer, poor folks will stay poor, and anyone that actually works and produces gets to pay more. But go ahead and argue about constitutional freedoms and social morality, because it will make your feel better about yourself.

It is very complex indeed, and partially self fulfilling. If you make a calculation that stocks will jump 20% in the next month, they will.

There are people, such as Warren Buffet, who have had entire careers doing much better than market. This is not only due to his ability to find good companies, but his ability to understand how things will unfold in the future. The science is there, but once it escapes to everyone, it becomes self fulfilling, which is a problem.

MCM says

There is no “health care crisis”

BlueCross declined me for private PPO coverage in 2003 because I had seen a knee specialist in 2002. F--- You.

The present system works really well if you're a millionaire and can self-cover, have a good job with a PPO, or can tolerate HMO levels of service. That's about half the population. The other half of this nation has been f---ed over by the status quo.

Compared to other modernized nations like Canada, Japan, Switzerland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Holland our system is horribly suboptimal in providing care for dollar input.

The current HCR is the best our political system could do. The 25% of the country with their heads on backwards and the general 40-40 liberal-conservative split in this country militated against deeper reforms.

Troy says

MCM says

There is no “health care crisis”

BlueCross declined me for private PPO coverage in 2003 because I had seen a knee specialist in 2002. F— You.

Sorry, still don't see the crisis. So you couldn't get INSURANCE! The horror! Are you dead? Are streets lined with dead people because they didn't have INSURANCE?

I just can't believe that folks think that by forcing everyone to buy INSURANCE it is going to reduce the cost of health care and magically make us all healthy.

MCM says

Sorry, still don’t see the crisis. So you couldn’t get INSURANCE! The horror! Are you dead? Are streets lined with dead people because they didn’t have INSURANCE?

Oh, I see. It's OK if some people die because they didn't have insurance--as long as it's not a whole lot. And if they are buried quickly so you don't really have to see them.

So, how many deaths before it becomes a "crisis" in your book? 1000? 10,000?

MCM says

I just can’t believe that folks think that by forcing everyone to buy INSURANCE it is going to reduce the cost of health care and magically make us all healthy.

the point is to move the status quo to the Canada, Japan, Swiss, Dutch, Danish, German, Italian, etc. systems.

This is going to be a very long process because 20% of this country are outright nutjobs, another 20% are deluded fools, and another 20% can't find their ass with a map. That leaves 40-50% of the country, depending on the phase of the moon, to caucus for progressive policy.

I'm 42 now and self-covered through a major PPO provider. The relationship is completely asymmetric, they have all the pricing power since going uncovered in this world is not an option for the financially prudent. Regulation is coming none too soon for me.

What we need are actual cost controls, to take the immense profits out of medicine, but HillaryCare got shot down 15+ years ago now. ObamaCare is hopefully just the first step. As a first step it is what it is -- not too different from RomneyCare. It is indeed a victory for the existing for-profit medical establishment and further improvements will require more fighting against the forces of got-mine-screw-you conservatism.

Insurance alone isn't going to create more capacity in the health services. But an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure as they say. It's a solid first step.

Nomograph says

MCM says

Sorry, still don’t see the crisis. So you couldn’t get INSURANCE! The horror! Are you dead?

And these folks wonder why they don’t get a seat at the table where the decisions are made.

Yeah because the AMA, Big pharma etc.. are not at all special interest groups looking out for their own bottom line. J6P doesn't deserve a voice because???????

AdHominem says

Yeah because the AMA, Big pharma etc.. are not at all special interest groups looking out for their own bottom line. J6P doesn’t deserve a voice because???????

J6P is welcome, MCM is not. Anyone who doesn't care if their fellow man dies or not doesn't get to help make decisions about the future of America

Here is what will likely happen:

1. Cost overruns
2. Fraud
3. Additional coverage extended to groups
4. Rising deficits in the program
5. Lower payments to physicians
6. Lower payments to hospitals
7. Delays in payments
8. Rising taxes on the rich
9. Rationing by doctors, hospitals, government
10. Delays in treatment
11. More HMO care: assembly line medicine
12. A search for scapegoats

Obamacare will lead to an expansion of these forms of
medicine:

1. Concierge
2. Wal-Mart
3. ER
4. HMO
5. Mexican

CONCIERGE. The rich and very rich hire their own
physicians. They pay top dollar. The physicians do not take
third-party payments, either from the government or insurance
companies. They are independent practitioners. They make
house calls. The houses they call on are very large.

For the upper middle class, there are fee-for-service
physicians. They take no third-party payments. They do not
make house calls.

WAL-MART. These are the walk-in clinics. They are
price competitive. They treat minor ailments. They sell
services on a one-time basis. They take credit cards. They
may or may not cater to the Medicare crowd. They are
assembly-line clinics. There are no major surgeries or other
high-cost, high-risk services.

ER. Large hospital emergency rooms are mandated by law.
The poor get treated there. In a life-and-death emergency,
they work. People who would otherwise die in a couple of
hours are saved. For walk-in patients, the ERs ration by
time. Patients demonstrate their patience.

HMO. This style of medicine is efficient. It cuts
costs by cutting services and cutting time. You see the
physician on duty. You may not have seen him before. His
job is to get you in and out as fast as possible. Time is
monitored by the company. Computers make this easy.

MEXICAN. This is off-shore medicine. In Canada, when
you can't get treated for months or years, you come to the
United States and pay. This will not be possible for
Canadians much longer, except for rich ones. Mexico will
serve upper middle-class Americans as the USA has served
Canadians.

It is possible to get very good surgical care in Asia
and Latin America. You have to know who the good
practitioners are. Asian hospitals sell for 25% the same
level of services. There is less regulation there. Place
fares are cheap. A stay in a hotel is cheap.

There will be entrepreneurs who set up Websites off-
shore that direct Americans to practitioners abroad. The Web
allows this sort of advertising.

Physicians who practice alone or in small limited
liability corporations will find that they cannot compete
under the new payment system. Assembly-line medicine will
replace the traditional doctor-patient relationship.

The stupid thing is that the only criticisms that carry any weight are those from the left, not the right.

ObamaCare's mandate-with-subsidies (what is causing the most sand-in-the-vag reaction here) is basically what the f---ing Heritage Foundation was proposing not too long ago:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/david-frum-aei-heritage-and-health-care/

And of course it's a lot like RomneyCare.

Most of this song and dance has been by the establishment to avoid any actual radical reform (single payer or the public option that would lead to single payer). The public has in fact been mau mau'd to accept something less than what we could have gotten with all three policy elements in Democratic hands.

Economics - some people understand some of it, and most people do not.

Unfortunately, when making economic forecasts one is always working with only partial and imperfect information.

Troy says
What we need are actual cost controls, to take the immense profits out of medicine, but HillaryCare got shot down 15+ years ago now. ObamaCare is hopefully just the first step. As a first step it is what it is — not too different from RomneyCare. It is indeed a victory for the existing for-profit medical establishment and further improvements will require more fighting against the forces of got-mine-screw-you conservatism.

Hi Troy, I totally agree. We desperately need to reign in the costs of health care - that is where the reform needs to happen. The current HCR may be a first step, however, there is too much unpleasant baggage associated with this first step. Just my opinion. Doesn't mean I'm right and your wrong, and vice versa.

MCM says

Troy says
What we need are actual cost controls, to take the immense profits out of medicine, but HillaryCare got shot down 15+ years ago now. ObamaCare is hopefully just the first step. As a first step it is what it is — not too different from RomneyCare. It is indeed a victory for the existing for-profit medical establishment and further improvements will require more fighting against the forces of got-mine-screw-you conservatism.

Hi Troy, I totally agree. We desperately need to reign in the costs of health care - that is where the reform needs to happen. The current HCR may be a first step, however, there is too much unpleasant baggage associated with this first step. Just my opinion. Doesn’t mean I’m right and your wrong, and vice versa.

Everyone agrees that costs are too high. The disagreement in policy is in regards to the scapegoating half of that thought.

The democrats blame the evil corporations, libertarians blame the corrupt government, and republicans blame gay people.

Nomograph says

MCM says

Sorry, still don’t see the crisis. So you couldn’t get INSURANCE! The horror! Are you dead?

And these folks wonder why they don’t get a seat at the table where the decisions are made.

Hey Nomo, please clarify. Exactly who is it you are referring to not getting a seat at the decision table? I voiced my opinion, and since it doesn't agree with yours, I (and anybody that agrees with my opinion) automatically lose our seat at the decision table?

A rather feeble analysis at best...

tatupu70 says

AdHominem says

Yeah because the AMA, Big pharma etc.. are not at all special interest groups looking out for their own bottom line. J6P doesn’t deserve a voice because???????

J6P is welcome, MCM is not. Anyone who doesn’t care if their fellow man dies or not doesn’t get to help make decisions about the future of America

And the second board bully weighs in! I just need Vincente to jump in, and I score a trifecta!

Please go back a read my posts. I never stated I don't care about people dying. I was trying to make a point about insurance. Silly sheep, not having insurance does not guarantee that you are going to die.

Also, you and Nomo have a rather myopic view of who is making the decisions about the future of America - I am very certain that a large number of very uncaring individuals are sitting at the table.

tatupu70 says

MCM says

Sorry, still don’t see the crisis. So you couldn’t get INSURANCE! The horror! Are you dead? Are streets lined with dead people because they didn’t have INSURANCE?

Oh, I see. It’s OK if some people die because they didn’t have insurance–as long as it’s not a whole lot. And if they are buried quickly so you don’t really have to see them.
So, how many deaths before it becomes a “crisis” in your book? 1000? 10,000?

How many people have actually died because they didn't have health insurance? Serious question - I don't know the answer, so I wish someone would jump in with some verifiable statistics. I suspect it is a very, very small number.

If hundreds of people a day were dying, it might be considered a crisis. Or a pandemic.

The real crisis is the underlying cost of health care. And since big business controls congress, and the politicians are masters at keeping shallow thinkers spun up on hot button issues (ie crisis!), I really don't see things changing.