The US has the best health care in the world?

[Al68]

He said, "I think they [meaning insurance carriers] should all be independent". "But they are now", I replied. He shrugged his shoulders and said something like "well then, I don't know".

After rereading this, it seems that maybe he really didn't realize that private insurance companies are not actually agents of government, like Democrats always seem to presume in their propaganda.

After all, most of their complaints against insurance companies amount to claims that their performance as agents of government is unsatisfactory. Considering insurance companies as private and independent instead of as part of some fictional system would unravel all their propaganda, rendering it completely nonsensical.

 

[turbo]

In this case, it is the "poorly-informed" that don't know this. Why would you call it a "lie"?

Because it is. If you like your private coverage you can keep it. Opponents of health-care reform are trying to scare people into believing that they will lose their right to buy private coverage and be forced into a universal public plan. That is simply not true.

Re-regulating an out-of-control insurance industry is NOT the same as outlawing private coverage. Banking and finance needs to be re-regulated, as well - that is not the same as outlawing banks. If HR3200 requires insurance companies to offer policies that cannot be canceled at soon as you get sick and cannot be capped if you come down with a catastrophic illness, so be it. That is not the same as outlawing private insurance coverage.

 

[Al68]

Because it is. If you like your private coverage you can keep it.

Only temporarily. And only an existing policy. So, yes, I can keep the policy I have for now, but I can't buy a new one like it for the rest of my life. And since only policies that refuse new enrollees are grandfathered, they won't last long. This is what Democrats mean when they say "gee, you can keep your private policy".

Opponents of health-care reform are trying to scare people into believing that they will lose their right to buy private coverage and be forced into a universal public plan. That is simply not true.

The reason that it "scares people" is because the truth in this case is scary. They will lose the ability to buy the kind of private insurance they choose. Their choices will be limited to those in the exchange. And, yes, there is a penalty (force) for not choosing and buying a policy in the exchange. And it's a stretch to even refer to such policies as semi-private.

And the "exchange" will not include any "just insurance" policies. It won't allow any kind of policy that doesn't include much, much more than just medical "insurance". No major medical policies. No basic insurance policies. There's a reason people buy basic policies that don't cover pre-existing conditions: The same reason they wouldn't pay the price for a car insurance policy that covers pre-existing damage.

Re-regulating an out-of-control insurance industry is NOT the same as outlawing private coverage.

I didn't say it was. I said that HR3200 outlaws private insurance policies. ("policies" means more than one policy, not all policies).

No one is being mislead the way you claim. Everyone knows what is meant by the claim that HR3200 outlaws private policies. The claim means exactly what HR3200 says.

Claiming that private policies aren't outlawed because there will be different (and much larger) semi-private policies allowed under the plan is just disingenuous, and not conducive to honest debate.

 

[mheslep]

I think you guys are talking past each other a bit.

The private insurance angle depends on how its phrased. The house bill will not by law directly force people to drop their current private insurance or doctor. The bill's effect however, will none the less will be to take away the ability of a great deal of people to continue with the same insurer and thus possibly their doctor.

The CBO has forecast, that upon realization of this health plan many employers are immediately going to dump their private plans and throw their employees on the public plan. (Not everybody, but it is in the millions per CBO). As this happens, the costs for the remaining private insurers will go up on the smaller pool and the process snowballs. In that group of people so effected, some of them may or may not welcome the public plan; regardless, those working stiffs will have no choice. They are going to lose their chosen private insurance through their employer.

The President knows this full well, as when asked about employers dropping people he recently said:

"When I say if you have your plan and you like it, or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don’t have to change plans, what I’m saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/keep-your-insurance-not-everyone/

 

[Al68]

I think you guys are talking past each other a bit.

The private insurance angle depends on how its phrased. The house bill will not by law directly force people to drop their current private insurance or doctor. In effect however, it most certainly will take away the ability of a great deal of people to continue with the same insurer and thus possibly their doctor.

Also, the "outlawing" of private plans is absolute for new policies that aren't in the exchange. This is the big issue.

Even if a person's current policy continues to exist, they lose the option to shop around, effectively making their existing policy the "only game in town" outside of the government "exchange". That's not exactly good for consumers.

And many don't realize that the exchange will only allow Cadillac comprehensive health care plans that are much larger than virtually anything on the market today. It won't allow any regular medical insurance policies at all. It won't even allow what are now considered very good policies by most.

 

[turbo]

In that group of people so effected, some of them may or may not welcome the public plan; regardless, those working stiffs will have no choice. They are going to lose their chosen private insurance through their employer.

Remember that there is a vast pool of people who are working in low-wage jobs with no benefits, who will at last get an opportunity to buy health insurance if health-care reform is passed. There are lots of people who work for small employers that do not offer any health insurance, or who only offer to insure their full-time workers. The US has slid into a service-based economy in which the costs of caring for low-wage employees falls squarely on the rest of us. Your local hospital is not going to eat the cost of paying for an ER visit for the kid of a Wal-Mart cashier because the kid is sick and she can't pay for an office call. It is passed on to all of us through higher fees that the hospital charges to recover its costs.

Blocking health-care reform is a huge gift to the Wal-Marts, supermarket chains, and fast-food franchises. There are powerful special interests that benefit greatly from the status-quo, and they aren't the mom-and-pop business that power our local economies.

There may be some small businesses that wish to forgo tax incentives that they could have received for providing health insurance to their employees, and certainly if those employees cannot get reasonably-priced private insurance, they may end up transitioning to a publicly-administered plan. Is that the end of the world? Not for most of us. An influx of relatively healthy productive individuals into a public plan would represent a sharp decrease in the experience rate of the plan, compared to Medicare, whose recipients are generally either retired or disabled. I have friends who are doctors, and who are quite happy with the coding requirements and payment schedules of Medicare and Medicaid because the administrative overhead is low enough to more than compensate for the lower payment schedules.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, yes I agree that the the current system is badly rigged.

That doesn't change my opinion that this statement:

...If you like your private coverage you can keep it. Opponents of health-care reform are trying to scare people into believing that they will lose their right to buy private coverage and be forced into a universal public plan. That is simply not true...

has to do a lot of backing up to get to this one:

...There may be some small businesses that wish to forgo tax incentives that they could have received for providing health insurance to their employees, and certainly if those employees cannot get reasonably-priced private insurance, they may end up transitioning to a publicly-administered plan. Is that the end of the world? ...

 

[turbo]

In any reform, there will be re-alignment. That does not mean that employees will have to move to a public option if the employers are happy with the rates that the private insurers charge. Perhaps health-insurance underwriters will have to get competitive.

What a horrid thing! [/sarcasm]

Health-care costs have more than doubled in Maine since 2000, and we certainly cannot afford to allow that to continue, especially since we have such a large percentage of seasonal/part-time workers who get NO insurance and cannot afford it. When health-care takes up 1/6th of our economy, it's about time we got a handle on the industry and stop the bleeding. The US spends twice as much as any other industrialized nation on health care and gets sub-standard results. The "free market" is not going to fix this situation - capitalism is not thriving when the masses are held hostage by the few, despite what the neo-cons will tell you.

 

[Al68]

Perhaps health-insurance underwriters will have to get competitive.

To compete with who? Already the regulatory barrier is big enough to protect big insurance companies from competition. HR3200 will outlaw all competing types of insurance outright. (ie major medical, etc)

The "free market" is not going to fix this situation

Well, we'll never know, but most of the complaints about insurance companies would be impossible with free market competition.

capitalism is not thriving when the masses are held hostage by the few, despite what the neo-cons will tell you.

Which "neo-con", whatever that means, said that?

It's the so-called left that wants to hold people hostage in this issue. They're the ones that are advocating the further restriction of individual liberty. They are the ones who want to force me to pay a middleman (insurance company) to pay my normal expected medical bills for no reason other than their profit. And they are the ones misleading the public by denying what is plainly written in the bill they advocate.

They are the ones that refuse to live and let live. They are the ones that just won't leave people alone that want nothing more from government than to be left alone. They are the ones advocating the use of force against people to get their way in this issue. They are the ones who fraudulently claim that anyone who dares to defend liberty from Democrats must just not care about people or otherwise have bad motives. They are the ones who call themselves "liberal" when they oppose liberty. [end of rant]

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Funny! David Brooks, a conservative journalist, just specified a new sect of the Republican Party -The Death Panel Conservatives.

Actually, he probably meant that to include Independents as well. It would interesting to know how this death panel claim breaks down by party and other demographics.

 

[WhoWee]

Funny! David Brooks, a conservative journalist, just specified a new sect of the Republican Party -The Death Panel Conservatives.

Actually, he probably meant that to include Independents as well. It would interesting to know how this death panel claim breaks down by party and other demographics.

Even funnier is how the debate has turned from "health care reform" to "health insurance reform".

Politics need to be removed from the equation and problem solving techniques applied. Personally, I don't think our political leaders are smart enough, detail oriented enough, or patient enough to deal with health care reform.

 

[turbo]

We should remain cognizant that the US has a (potentially) incredible health-care system that is being sucked dry by health "insurance". Such "insurance" defies the traditional definition of insurance as distributed risk - typical plans can bleed you dry before the "insurance" plan kicks in and can drop you like a hot potato if you get sick. It is high time that average workers are allowed to buy some coverage that won't evaporate the first time you need it.

 

[WhoWee]

We should remain cognizant that the US has a (potentially) incredible health-care system that is being sucked dry by health "insurance". Such "insurance" defies the traditional definition of insurance as distributed risk - typical plans can bleed you dry before the "insurance" plan kicks in and can drop you like a hot potato if you get sick. It is high time that average workers are allowed to buy some coverage that won't evaporate the first time you need it.

I think we also need to look at how we got to this point. I'll throw a little gas on the fire here to move the conversation forward.

How many people have health insurance that is comparable to the GM/Union health care policies? These "Cadillac" policies cover everything and are very expensive. An individual can not purchase such a policy, and if they could the price would be double their normal choices.

Health insurance (like car insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance, homeowners insurance, etc.) should be used for catastrophic events, not routine doctor visits, teeth cleanings, and eye glasses. But, large employer paid groups (including unions and government) have required such "coverage". This group is typically not willing to pay more for the same coverage.

A different aspect is the effect of a "network discount". Insurance companies don't pay "list price", they negotiate discounts. Accordingly, people that self pay for high deductible plans ($5,000 to $25,000 deductible - perhaps an HSA) pay less in monthly premiums but need to pay amounts up to the deductible. However, unlike the person with no insurance coverage at all, the people with high deductible coverages are entitled to a "network discount". A typical doctors visit costing $85 might actually cost the insured person $45. Whereas the uninsured person would pay the full $85 fee. The same is true for tests, etc. This is a major problem for uninsured people with pre-existing conditions - they are subject to the maximum price. Many find their best alternative is to purchase a catastrophic indemnity plan (pays fixed amount per a schedule) that provides network discounts. These plans can be expensive but do offer limited coverage.

Another important topic is prescription coverage. The government could be helpful to level the playing field for prescriptions. There are too many variables to address in this post.

Still another consideration is the capital requirements of an insurance company. They are rated by A.M. Best and others as to their ability to pay claims. A good company might be able to pay within 14 days, a below average company 45 days? Either way, the minimum capital requirement of a major health insurance company is typically $500 million to $1 billion in assets. Small companies are precluded - they are limited by their ability to pay claims.

These companies also need a very large administrative capability. As I posted earlier, they need to register the company with each state, register each policy they sell with each state, meet the mandates for each state for each policy, and register their agents with each state. Additionally, the companies must monitor the content of ads for each agent, provide training and support to the agent network, and insure HIPPA compliance at all times. Next, the companies must negotiate with (HMO/PPO) networks and work with these organization to pay claims and manage care.

My point is there are many variables to consider. The trend in Congress lately (stimulus Bill) has been to not even read the legislation before voting on a Bill. Health care reform (at nearly 20% of our economy) is too big and too important to approach as a political issue. Throwing money and more regulations at it won't fix the existing problems - just alter them.

 

[Al68]

We should remain cognizant that the US has a (potentially) incredible health-care system that is being sucked dry by health "insurance". Such "insurance" defies the traditional definition of insurance as distributed risk - typical plans can bleed you dry before the "insurance" plan kicks in and can drop you like a hot potato if you get sick. It is high time that average workers are allowed to buy some coverage that won't evaporate the first time you need it.

Huh? Any evidence that workers are not allowed to buy such insurance in the U.S.? If so, I must be in big trouble, because I did.

 

[Al68]

How many people have health insurance that is comparable to the GM/Union health care policies? These "Cadillac" policies cover everything and are very expensive. An individual can not purchase such a policy, and if they could the price would be double their normal choices.

Or much more than double. This is a major point that is being neglected.

If HR3200 passes, all (new) policies must be those "Cadillac" policies that, as you say, most individuals cannot purchase, would never purchase, and could never afford, and don't need. Yet HR3200 imposes penalties for not doing so.

The "exchange" in HR3200 simply will not allow any (new) policies even remotely similar to any normal policies that individuals buy now.

If everyone knew what HR3200 actually said, no politician that voted for it could ever be re-elected, so it's no surprise that they try to redirect debate from the substance of the bill to what they claim are their goals and "good intentions", and what they claim are the bad motives of anyone who opposes them because they actually read the bill.

Advocates of the bill know that discussing its contents won't get it passed, but ad hominem attacks and hate speech usually do the trick, especially among their constituency.

Even in this thread, advocates of HR3200 simply don't discuss the controversial contents of the bill.

 

[WhoWee]

At the end of the day, HR3200 is a political solution that will avoid fixing what is broken today. Specifically, medicare, medicaid, and social security are unsustainable in their current form. Additionally, health insurance is over-regulated in a manner that increases costs and prevents competition. Last, Doctors (not lawyers and politicians) should lead the way in a health care reform debate. Everyone should go back and read ALL of the earlier posts by adrenaline. She provides some very specific examples of challenges that need to be addressed.

To make a different type of comparison, if you were running a chemistry experiment, would you start with a contaminated test tube or would you start with a clean test tube? Better yet, if you didn't know what was in the contaminated vessel, would you run an analysis to determine the contents, or just guess and over-compensate in some erratic way and tell your associates to "just trust you"?

The problem needs to be studied in great detail and every proposal must be considered in it's entirety. This level of focus is not possible in the midst of an emotional, ideological, and political debate.

 

[Al68]

To make a different type of comparison, if you were running a chemistry experiment, would you start with a contaminated test tube or would you start with a clean test tube?

Good analogy. In this case, most of the problems are caused by dirt in the test tube, and HR3200 proposes to add more dirt.

 

[WhoWee]

A new Obama strategy?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090906/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

" By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – 31 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration's bottom line on a government health insurance option blurred Sunday as White House officials stressed support but stopped of short of calling it a must-have part of an overhaul.

As President Barack Obama prepares for a Wednesday night speech to Congress in a risky bid to salvage his top domestic priority, no other issue is so highly charged. Obama's liberal supporters consider the proposal for a public plan to compete with private insurers do-or-die. Republicans say it's unacceptable. It's doubtful the public plan can pass the Senate.

White House political adviser David Axelrod said Obama is "not walking away" from a public plan. But asked if the president would veto a bill that came to him without the option, Axelrod declined to answer.

The president "believes it should be in the plan, and he expects to be in the plan, and that's our position," Axelrod told The Associated Press.

Asked if that means a public plan has to be in the bill for Obama to sign it, Axelrod responded: "I'm not going to deal in hypotheticals. ... He believes it's important."

The biggest challenge Obama faces in his prime-time address is to take ownership of health care legislation that until now has been shaped by political conflicts in Congress. Lawmakers return this week from a summer break that saw eroding public support for an overhaul and contentious town hall meetings in their districts.

The idea of a public plan has become a symbol for the reach of government in a revamped health care system. Supporters say it would give workers and their families similarly secure benefits as older people now get through Medicare, while leaving medical decisions up to doctors and patients. The plan would be offered alongside private coverage through a new kind of purchasing pool called an insurance exchange. At least initially, the exchange would be open to small employers and people buying coverage on their own.

Insurers say they could never compete against the price-setting power of government. Employer groups warn it would undermine the system of job-based coverage.

While there's strong support for a public plan among House Democrats, the votes appear to be lacking in the Senate.

Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a swing vote on health care legislation, said the only way a public plan should be included is as a last resort. The government option would only be rolled out if after a few years, private insurers have failed to increase competition and restrain costs.

"If somehow the private market doesn't respond the way it's supposed to, then it would trigger a public option, or a government-run option," Nelson said on "State of the Union" on CNN. "But only as a fail-safe backstop."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who joined Axelrod in a one-two administration punch on the Sunday talk shows, said the president believes a government plan would be "a valuable tool." But Gibbs danced around the question of whether it has to be in the final legislation.

Asked if Obama would sign legislation that lacked a government plan, Gibbs responded: "We're not going to prejudge what the process will be when we sign a bill, which the president expects to do this year."

Asked if Obama would say in his speech that he'd veto a bill without a government plan, Gibbs responded: "Well, I doubt that we're going to get into heavy veto threats on Wednesday."

The uncertainty over the administration's position isn't new. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said last month that a government alternative to private insurance is "not the essential element" in revamping the system to guarantee coverage for all and try to curb unsustainable costs.

Liberals — many of whom want to do away with the private health insurance industry and replace it with Medicare for all — were furious. At the time, White House officials said Sebelius' remarks were being misinterpreted. Left unclear was Obama's bottom line.

On a call with prominent liberal House members Friday, Obama refused to be pinned down on the issue, a participant told The Associated Press. "It was unclear as to whether the public option is on or off the table," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

Independents who helped propel Obama to the presidency are increasingly skeptical about his direction on health care. Unsubstantiated allegations that the legislation would promote euthanasia grabbed headlines last month. But beneath such controversies, voters appear most concerned about the scope and costs of the bill — around $1 trillion over 10 years. Obama has said he won't sign a bill unless it is fully paid for and doesn't add to the deficit.

Gibbs said Obama will refocus the debate on the benefits of overhauling the system: more security and lower costs for the majority of people who have health insurance, and new ways to help self-employed people and small businesses get coverage.

"People will leave that speech knowing where he stands," said Gibbs. He said Obama is considering offering his own health care legislation, instead of letting Congress sort out all the details.

Gibbs appeared on ABC's "This Week" and Axelrod was on NBC's "Meet the Press.""

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another anecdote, but interesting. My father nearly died a few weeks ago. He had been under private care but recently moved to an area where he has easy access to a VA Hospital. What nearly killed him was the incompetence of his private care physicians. The VA ran a series of tests and then told him to quit taking just about everything he was taking. His blood had gotten so thick that his heart was failing to pump enough blood. This lead to a kidney infection. At the point that we became aware that he was having problems, he was into full-blown heart and renal failure.

He had triple-bypass done about twelve years ago and was under constant supervision by his doctors. How he got that bad with no one noticing is impossible to say, but it never should have happened. The only reason he went to the VA instead of his other physician was that he was rushed to the emergency room by my family. The VA put him an an entirely new regimine of drugs and he is now doing very well. So much for the fallacy that private care is implicitly better than government-run health care. The contrast between the VA and private care has been like day and night!

Government run health care is not even on the table, but now I'm almost wishing it was.

 

[Hurkyl]

Another anecdote, but interesting. ... So much for the fallacy that private care is implicitly better than government-run health care. The contrast between the VA and private care has been like day and night!

Proof by anecdote! I'll take your word for it that this isn't just a hasty generalization argument. (On second thought, I won't)

 

[Hans de Vries]

From the other thread:

A US health care system at the level of that of Sweden or Norway would have prevented
1,000,000 US citizens from dying unnecessary in their first year of life.

[QUOTE="wiki]The infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country"[/QUOTE]



Infant mortality per country worldwide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate


Map of Infant mortality under non-Hispanic whites in the US per state:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=48&cat=2&sub=13&yr=79&typ=3&o=a&sortc=1


Don't confuse the latter with the 2008 election map...


Regards, Hans

 

[WhoWee]

From the other thread:

A US health care system at the level of that of Sweden or Norway would have prevented
1,000,000 US citizens from dying unnecessary in their first year of life.





Infant mortality per country worldwide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate


Map of Infant mortality under non-Hispanic whites in the US per state:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=48&cat=2&sub=13&yr=79&typ=3&o=a&sortc=1


Don't confuse the latter with the 2008 election map...


Regards, Hans

Interesting stats. By the way, look closely, the US info doesn't track across the two charts.

As for the US by state chart. I don't think this is the point you wanted to make. But, I have to wonder how many of the Non-Hispanic Blacks are on a Government health plan?

The death rate for Blacks is more than double White and Hispanic. It seems to me there are a disproportionate number of Blacks (of child bearing age) on welfare/medicaid - could this be the cause? Could Blacks on medicaid be experiencing a higher infant mortality rate?

 

[WhoWee]

The best example just happens to be D.C. here's a comparison US to D.C.
Non-Hisp White Non-Hisp Black Hispanic Total
US ...... 5.7% 13.6% 5.6% 6.9%
District of Columbia 3.4% 17.2% 7.2% 11.4%

Blacks account for 55% of the D.C. and only 13% of the US population.

 

[Al68]

A US health care system at the level of that of Sweden or Norway would have prevented 1,000,000 US citizens from dying unnecessary in their first year of life.

That's a wild, unsubstantiated claim. Any evidence? Anecdotal evidence that obviously represents exceptions to a general trend don't count.

The infant mortality rate (IMR) is the number of deaths of infants under one year old in a given year per 1,000 live births in the same year. This rate is often used as an indicator of the level of health in a country"

"Often used as an indicator of the level of health" doesn't equal valid indicator of good "government health care policy".

Also note that according to your source, the U.S. infant mortality rate is 6.3. Sure it's not number one, but the worldwide average is 49.4.

But the most obvious point is that if the rate were generally lower in socialist countries, and generally higher in economically freer countries, the rate in the U.S. would be much higher than average instead of much lower.

Cherry picking statistics and using exceptions to try to prove a rule is just faulty logic.

Notice the stark difference if, instead of picking Sweden and Norway, you picked socialist countries at random, or averaged them. Then you might see the trend instead of exceptions to it.

 

[Hans de Vries]

That's a wild, unsubstantiated claim. Any evidence? Anecdotal evidence that obviously represents exceptions to a general trend don't count."Often used as an indicator of the level of health" doesn't equal valid indicator of good "government health care policy".

I did provide the facts and figures from trusted and regarded sources.

Also note that according to your source, the U.S. infant mortality rate is 6.3. Sure it's not number one, but the worldwide average is 49.4.

But the most obvious point is that if the rate were generally lower in socialist countries, and generally higher in economically freer countries, the rate in the U.S. would be much higher than average instead of much lower.

Cherry picking statistics and using exceptions to try to prove a rule is just faulty logic.

Notice the stark difference if, instead of picking Sweden and Norway, you picked socialist countries at random, or averaged them. Then you might see the trend instead of exceptions to it.

The infant mortality under non Hispanic Whites in the conservative states
of the USA is much higher as in any Western European country.

Even though the European numbers DO include the very large immigrant
populations from North Africa and the Middle east.

If you don't like it... then Support a decent Health care system.Regards, Hans

Map of Infant mortality under non-Hispanic whites in the US per state:
http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=48&cat=2&sub=13&yr=79&typ=3&o=a&sortc=1
Infant mortality per country worldwide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

 

[Al68]

I did provide the facts and figures from trusted and regarded sources.

But they simply did not back up your claim. In fact your source showed the opposite general trend of your claim. The infant mortality rate is, on average, much higher in countries with universal health care than in the U.S.

That's how statistics work. If you pick and choose data points, you can make any conclusion you want, even if it is the exception to the rule. If you want to relate universal health care to the infant mortality rate, then you must consider all countries with universal health care, not just choose the ones that happen to deviate from the general trend.

If you don like it... then Support a decent Health care system.

I have a better idea. If you don't like it, then support freedom.

 

[Hans de Vries]

But they simply did not back up your claim.

Your problem seems to be a lack of knowledge of which countries are
in Europe and which of them have welfare systems that you would call
"Socialist welfare systems"

The latter have lower infant mortality rates as the rest of Europe and
much lower as the USA.
Regards, Hans

 

[Al68]

Your problem seems to be a lack of knowledge of which countries are
in Europe and which of them have welfare systems that you would call
"Socialist welfare systems"

Nope. It seems that you don't realize that your claim was that the reason that those European countries (that had lower infant mortality rates than the U.S.) did so because of universal health care, then you cited a source that showed that the countries you picked were exceptions to the general trend that most countries with universal health care have much higher infant mortality rates than the U.S.

If you're going to claim universal health care is the reason for low infant mortality rates, then you must compare all countries with universal health care, not just the ones you chose that you don't think I know are in Europe.

What if I were to claim that many, many millions of Indian children would be saved if only they eliminated universal health care? After all, their infant mortality rate is 55 compared to 6.3 in the U.S. The only difference between my ridiculous claim and yours is that my example (India) is close to the overall average of the data.

 

[Hans de Vries]

If you're going to claim universal health care is the reason for low infant mortality rates, then you must compare all countries with universal health care, not just the ones you chose that you don't think I know are in Europe.

What if I were to claim that many, many millions of Indian children would be saved if only they eliminated universal health care? After all, their infant mortality rate is 55 compared to 6.3 in the U.S. The only difference between my ridiculous claim and yours is that my example (India) is close to the overall average of the data.

There's no use at all in comparing the US with countries which do not have
similar standards of living and comparable GDP per capita.

India has 2% of the US GDP per capita, wide spread poverty and abysmal
water supply and sanitation. Furthermore, 60% of healthcare in India is
private-sector anyway... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_IndiaRegards, Hans

 

[Al68]

There's no use at all in comparing the US with countries which do not have
similar standards of living and comparable GDP per capita.

That's like picking healthy smokers (instead of smokers at random) to claim that smoking is good for your health, claiming there is no use comparing non-smokers to people with lung cancer or emphysema.

Infant mortality rate is partially dependent on standard of living and GDP. And standard of living and GDP per capita is dependent on economic freedom. Notice that both Sweden and Norway rate rate higher than average (about 70) in the index of economic freedom overall, despite universal health care. If you want to isolate universal health care as a "cause" of something, you can't cherry pick the countries that have high standards of living/GDP to do it, when they are far from representative of most countries with universal health care.

India has 2% of the US GDP per capita, wide spread poverty and abysmal
water supply and sanitation.

Because of socialist policies.

Furthermore, 60% of healthcare in India is
private-sector anyway...

Not in the relevant sense here. They have universal health care.

 

[Hans de Vries]

That's like picking healthy smokers (instead of smokers at random) to claim that smoking is good for your health, claiming there is no use comparing non-smokers to people with lung cancer.

Infant mortality rate is partially dependent on standard of living and GDP. And standard of living and GDP per capita is dependent on economic freedom. Notice that both Sweden and Norway rate rate higher than average (about 70) in the index of economic freedom overall, despite universal health care. If you want to isolate universal health care as a "cause" of something, you can't cherry pick the countries that have high standards of living/GDP to do it, when they are far from representative of most countries with universal health care.Because of socialist policy.Not in the relevant sense here. They have universal health care.

Obama is looking at Western European countries which have demonstrated
better benchmarks in healthcare at reduced bureaucratic overhead and less
excessive costs.

These countries are what one would call Social Democracies with experienced
Welfare systems. They try to combine entrepreneurial freedom with
governmental responsibility.

Simplistic comparisons like "Obama=Socialism" totally ignore what is really
going on in these countries.


Regards Hans.

 

[Al68]

Obama is looking at Western European countries which have demonstrated
better benchmarks in healthcare at reduced bureaucratic overhead and less
excessive costs.

These countries are what one would call Social Democracies with experienced
Welfare systems. They try to combine entrepreneurial freedom with
governmental responsibility.

Simplistic comparisons like "Obama=Socialism" totally ignore what is really
going on in these countries.

Well, if you're just claiming that the economic policies of Sweden and Norway are much better than those of most socialist countries, then I agree with you 100%.

They do have more economic freedom than most, despite not being libertarian paradises, and as a result they fit the general trend that economic freedom improves standards of living.

But universal health care isn't the cause of low infant mortality rates, like you earlier suggested. You just can't statistically isolate universal health care as a cause by picking the successes and ignoring the failures. Especially when failure is the norm, and the successes are obviously due to relative economic freedom (along with other factors of course).

In other words, Sweden and Norway are "right-wing" relative to most socialist countries, despite having universal health care in common. That's why they have a higher standard of living which leads to a lower infant mortality rate.

And another important point is country size. The U.S. must be compared to comparable size countries for any meaningful economic policy analysis. And as has been pointed out, among large countries, the U.S. consistently has a much higher standard of living, GDP per capita, it dominates all the charts when it comes to health, from infant mortality rates to cancer survival rates, and everything in between. Obviously that says something about which economic policies work best for large countries.

 

[WhoWee]

The health care debate is about cost. The current Government programs account for roughly 50% of the total cost already. These programs are mismanaged and (in the case of Social Security) surpluses are looted to pay for other projects.

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml
"Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care

Health care spending continues to rise at a rapid rate forcing businesses to cut back on health insurance coverage and forcing many families to cut back on basic necessities such as food and electricity and, in some cases, shelters and homes.

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems increase the cost of medical care associated with government health programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.



National Health Care Spending

* National health spending is expected to reach $2.5 trillion in 2009, accounting for 17.6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). By 2018, national health care expenditures are expected to reach $4.4 trillion—more than double 2007 spending.1
* National health expenditures are expected to increase faster than the growth in GDP: between 2008 and 2018, the average increase in national health expenditures is expected to be 6.2 percent per year, while the GDP is expected to increase only 4.1 percent per year. 1
* In just three years, the Medicare and Medicaid programs will account for 50 percent of all national health spending. 1
* Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures this year than it receives in taxes and other dedicated revenues. In addition, the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund that pays for physician services and the prescription drug benefit will continue to require general revenue financing and charges on beneficiaries that will grow substantially faster than the economy and beneficiary incomes over time. 2
* According to one study, of the $2.1 trillion the U.S. spent on health care in 2006, nearly $650 billion was above what we would expect to spend based on the level of U.S. wealth versus other nations. These additional costs are attributable to $436 billion outpatient care and another $186 billion of spending related to high administrative costs. 3"Also http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm"By Seung Min Kim, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers.

Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group.

"I don't think anybody has any idea about how much they are paying because of the need to cover the health care costs of the uninsured," said Ron Pollack, the group's executive director. "This is a hidden tax on all insurance premiums, whether it is paid by business for their work or by families when they purchase their own coverage.""

We are already paying for the unpaid balances of the uninsured.

Universal health care or single payer will eventually funnel all of the health insurance premiums through Washington. This is not the answer. Our elected officials can not be trusted with "Trust Funds" - they've proven this point with their handling of Social Security funds.

 

[mheslep]

There's no use at all in comparing the US with countries which do not have
similar standards of living and comparable GDP per capita...

Hans, there's no use in making an infant mortality comparison unless you know the standards used in making the count. You do not, or have not demonstrated it here.

...First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country.

http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/articles/060924/2healy.htm
There are other factors, such as the abortion rate, that neatly remove what might high risk pregnancies from the statistics. The abortion http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html" in Europe is nearly twice as high as in North America.

 

[mheslep]

Obama is looking at Western European countries which have demonstrated better benchmarks in healthcare

No, they have not demonstrated better medical care related outcomes. The US tops most of those.

at reduced bureaucratic overhead and less
excessive costs...

Yes European health care costs less, nearly half the US, hence the the concentration on cost savings in this debate. I don't think the bureaucratic overhead claim holds everywhere.