Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - US Health Care is BEST, even including uninsured

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

US Health Care is BEST, even including uninsured
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

ontheway

Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:46 am Post subject: US Health Care is BEST, even including uninsured

The New York Times
Science

To Explain Longevity Gap, Look Past Health System
JOHN TIERNEY
Published: September 21, 2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22tier.html?_r=1

Quote:

...a prominent researcher, Samuel H. Preston, has taken a closer look at the growing body of international data, and he finds no evidence that America�s health care system is to blame for the longevity gap between it and other industrialized countries. In fact, he concludes, the American system in many ways provides superior treatment even when uninsured Americans are included in the analysis.

Quote:

Americans pay more for health care partly because they get more thorough treatment for some diseases, and partly because they get sick more often than people in Europe and other industrialized countries.

Quote:

An American�s life expectancy at birth is about 78 years, which is lower than in most other affluent countries. Life expectancy is about 80 in the United Kingdom, 81 in Canada and France, and 83 in Japan, according to the World Health Organization.

This longevity gap, Dr. Preston says, is primarily due to the relatively high rates of sickness and death among middle-aged Americans, chiefly from heart disease and cancer....

But there are many more differences between Europe and the United States than just the health care system. Americans are more ethnically diverse. They eat different food. They are fatter. Perhaps most important, they used to be exceptionally heavy smokers. For four decades, until the mid-1980s, per-capita cigarette consumption was higher in the United States (particularly among women) than anywhere else in the developed world. Dr. Preston and other researchers have calculated that if deaths due to smoking were excluded, the United States would rise to the top half of the longevity rankings for developed countries.

Quote:

As it is, the longevity gap starts at birth and persists through middle age, but then it eventually disappears. If you reach 80 in the United States, your life expectancy is longer than in most other developed countries.

When we adjust for race, nationality, obesity, and smoking, we find that the US has the best health care in the world, bar none. This is now. Even with all the problems caused by the government, including the fact that most insurance related problems including the massive number of uninsured is also caused by the government.

America already has the best health care system in the world. We can make it better by getting the government out of it. We can cut costs in half by deregulation of health care providers. This will also cut insurance rates in half.

We can make insurance more affordable to working Americans and make it portable by repealing the income tax. This will provide additional net income to most working Americans that is greater than the cost of health insurance. It will bring about the availability of "whole life" health insurance for the American people, available before birth and portable and non cancellable for a lifetime.

We can increase insurance competition and increase the availability of policies by eliminating the state regulation of insurance and health care. This will further improve coverages and choices and cut rates.

Finally, we can cut insurance rates 90% by allowing the purchase of major medical coverage through the use of high deductibles for those who wish to have the best care and freedom and responsiblity for their own day to day health.

It is time to cram the lies of Obama and his fascist-socialist-democratic party back down their throats.

We do need health care reform.

We need it now.

We need to get the government out of health care and health insurance completely.

RufusW

Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Location: Busan

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:57 pm Post subject:

If you have healthcare based on profit the system will always want to treat people as much as possible. Preventative medicine will not be focused on because it hinders the business model. Maybe lobbying will stop in the U.S., but if it doesn't the healthcare businesses may well lobby against 'healthy taxes' to keep its customers coming. Furthermore, healthcare is simply a human right and you should not have a society where people can go without long-term care due to their income.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:18 pm Post subject:

Just more pro-Insurance Industry Propaganda. What a shame.

No one's suggesting we stop developing medical technology. No one's suggesting we reduce the quality of our health care. No one's suggesting turning all hospitals into government institutions. We just want to pay for our health care in a different way, with less reliance on a for profit Insurance Industries that doesn't actually produce anything yet siphons an immense amount of money out of health care transactions every year.

If you really believe we can't have the same quality health care without the Insurance Industry being able to get away with what it currently gets away with, you're either:

1) In their pocket (like the Republican Party).
2) Blinded by ideology (like certain individuals on this forum).

The Insurance Industry doesn't profit off of creating health care, it profits off of restricting it.

Quote:

We can cut costs in half by deregulation of health care providers. This will also cut insurance rates in half.

Yeah, and we can raise our standard of living by 1000% by abolishing government. And pollution only exists because of the government; no one would pollute otherwise. And because of social security, we don't have space colonies.

To be fair, at least this is one of your less ludicrious claims.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:53 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Quote:

We can cut costs in half by deregulation of health care providers. This will also cut insurance rates in half.

You're no less ideologically blinded than the crazy righties on this board.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:59 pm Post subject:

RufusW wrote:

If you have healthcare based on profit the system will always want to treat people as much as possible. Preventative medicine will not be focused on because it hinders the business model.

This doesn't happen in any other market where private firms provide the good. Why is healthcare such a special case. And "Because health care is a special case." isn't the correct answer.

Quote:

Maybe lobbying will stop in the U.S., but if it doesn't the healthcare businesses may well lobby against 'healthy taxes' to keep its customers coming.

So what?

Quote:

Furthermore, healthcare is simply a human right and you should not have a society where people can go without long-term care due to their income.

Bankrupting your economy and not stifling natural economic growth is a good thing too. In a perfect world everyone would be 100% healthy and have access to everything they want. Unfortunately we don't live in that world yet. And having the govt mandate it, isn't going to get us any closer to it.

This might help you to understand a little better.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/health/policy/20view.html?_r=1

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:06 pm Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Fox wrote:

Quote:

We can cut costs in half by deregulation of health care providers. This will also cut insurance rates in half.

You're no less ideologically blinded than the crazy righties on this board.

Well, at least you refer to yourself correctly as a crazy righty. Smile

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:10 pm Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

RufusW wrote:

If you have healthcare based on profit the system will always want to treat people as much as possible. Preventative medicine will not be focused on because it hinders the business model.

This doesn't happen in any other market where private firms provide the good. Why is healthcare such a special case. And "Because health care is a special case." isn't the correct answer.

What? Yes it does. Our society virtually revolves around wasteful, disposal goods instead of building to last. Tooth brushes. Lightbulbs. Roofs. Batteries. It's all built to fail, and fail fairly quickly too.

Unlike toothbrushes and light bulbs, though, when health care fails, people die.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:33 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

RufusW wrote:

If you have healthcare based on profit the system will always want to treat people as much as possible. Preventative medicine will not be focused on because it hinders the business model.

This doesn't happen in any other market where private firms provide the good. Why is healthcare such a special case. And "Because health care is a special case." isn't the correct answer.

Health care and tooth brushes aren't analogous. Health care, generally, is something we only consume when something goes wrong. We don't need it day to day, like a tooth brush. And we have plenty of tooth brushes with out there being a "public option" for them. Even if the govt did mandate that all tooth brushes should last for 10 years and cost 10c, would that happen? Health care is no different.

Quote:

Unlike toothbrushes and light bulbs, though, when health care fails, people die.

Govt fails every single day at basically every single thing it does. How is it all of a sudden going to break that streak and provide health care for every one and not spend more or kill more people in the process?

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:55 pm Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Fox wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

RufusW wrote:

If you have healthcare based on profit the system will always want to treat people as much as possible. Preventative medicine will not be focused on because it hinders the business model.

This doesn't happen in any other market where private firms provide the good. Why is healthcare such a special case. And "Because health care is a special case." isn't the correct answer.

Health care and tooth brushes aren't analogous.

Irrelevent. You said other private firms that provide goods don't behave in the fashion Rufus described. I pointed out that yes, they do behave that way. Businesses favor short term solutions that fill their pockets over long term solutions that reduce their profits but leave society better off.

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Quote:

Unlike toothbrushes and light bulbs, though, when health care fails, people die.

Govt fails every single day at basically every single thing it does.

No, it doesn't. Yes, there is unfortunately corruption (most of which stems from private businesses having too much influence). Yes, there is inefficiency. No, that doesn't equate to failure, it just equates to lack of perfection.

I got a fairly good initial public education, and an excellent education at a public college. I benefitted from a police force that kept order in my community. I benefitted from public roads when I cared to drive, and public transportation when I didn't. Anyone saying my government failed at these things is just letting their ideology blind them to reality.

Government very, very clearly doesn't fail at everything it does.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:02 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Fox wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

RufusW wrote:

If you have healthcare based on profit the system will always want to treat people as much as possible. Preventative medicine will not be focused on because it hinders the business model.

This doesn't happen in any other market where private firms provide the good. Why is healthcare such a special case. And "Because health care is a special case." isn't the correct answer.

Health care and tooth brushes aren't analogous.

You argue semantics about as often as you answer an actual argument.

Quote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Quote:

Unlike toothbrushes and light bulbs, though, when health care fails, people die.

Govt fails every single day at basically every single thing it does.

You got a "fairly good" education at a public school as the govt likely has a virtual monopoly over the provision of education in your area. You may have got an excellent education if the providers were expected to account for the quality of the good they were providing.

Again you drove on public roads, but only because the govt enjoys a monopoly on their provision. Someone still paid for the roads, and likely much more and at a lower quality than if the provider were expected to account for the quality.

Govt provision of a good almost consistently fails in comparison to private provision. I could build roads and schools and hospitals too, if you gave me a big pile of cash.

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:23 pm Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

You argue semantics about as often as you answer an actual argument.

I'll take that as an admittance that yes, other private industries do behave in the fashion Rufus is describing.

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Yeah, I may have gotten an excellent education. Or, I may have gotten a terrible bargain basement education. It simply depends on how much money my parents had to spare. Public Education sets a minimum standard, and probably one that is better than the worst private schools would be in a system entirely lacking in pubilc education.

The point is that the government assuredly did not fail to educate me. All this talk of the government failing at everything it does is just hyperbole.

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Again you drove on public roads, but only because the govt enjoys a monopoly on their provision.

So what? The government intended to provide me roads, and they did it (roads I'm personally quite happy with, and would be very unhappy to see fall into private hands). Calling that failure is silly. Twist, turn, and qualify all you like, but anyone who says the government fails at everything either doesn't understand the meaning of the word failure, or is blinded by ideology. Smile

doc_ido

Joined: 03 Sep 2007

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:52 pm Post subject:

You know what else? When you "adjust" for Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK, the USA has the best beer in the world!

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:57 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

You argue semantics about as often as you answer an actual argument.

I'll take that as an admittance that yes, other private industries do behave in the fashion Rufus is describing.

Maybe so. But certainly not for consumer items.

Quote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

The bolded statement shows me that you don't understand what a free market in education would entail. All it means is that a student can choose which school he goes to. That means he also takes the funding he would've received at public school to what ever school will take him.(AKA a "voucher".) If you want to spend more you can go to a more expensive school. For those who can't afford the more expensive school, scholarships would assuredly be available.

In this situation, under performing schools would go out of business and their assets would be bought up by those that offer a decent product at a decent price. This in fact would lead to a much HIGHER minimum standard of education.

As for your last point in that quote. I would consider anything a failure that can be done better at a lower cost by someone else. Especially when you are talking about something as important as the education of our children. Is an inferior product at an extortionate price really not a failure?

Quote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Again you drove on public roads, but only because the govt enjoys a monopoly on their provision.

Again how can an inferior product at a higher price not be considered a failure? But anyone who says the government is the answer to all our problems either doesn't understand the meaning of the word failure, or is blinded by ideology. Smile

Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

The bolded statement shows me that you don't understand what a free market in education would entail. All it means is that a student can choose which school he goes to. That means he also takes the funding he would've received at public school to what ever school will take him.(AKA a "voucher".)

If you want to spend more you can go to a more expensive school. For those who can't afford the more expensive school, scholarships would assuredly be available.

In this situation, under performing schools would go out of business and their assets would be bought up by those that offer a decent product at a decent price. This in fact would lead to a much HIGHER minimum standard of education.

Show me the data regarding nations who run their educational systems in this fashion and how they compare to nations who don't run their educational systems in this fashion?

As an aside, no, that's not free market education. The government is giving you a credit you can only spend on education; if all education availible fails to meet your standards, you can't simply use the money on something else. That's not the market being left to operate freely, it's a market with substantial governmental interference. Free market education is the government saying, "Go pay someone to get educated, it's no concern of ours."

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

As for your last point in that quote. I would consider anything a failure that can be done better at a lower cost by someone else.

Fine. Most of the rest of us consider something a failure if it actually fails at its stated objectives.

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Again how can an inferior product at a higher price not be considered a failure?

By this logic, almost every human endeavor ever has been a failure. Almost everything could be at least somewhat better, or be at least slightly cheaper, or at least a bit more efficient.

Back in reality, most humans don't use the term failure in this way. Only people desparately trying to justify an ideology do. A failure is defined by one's objectives, not by whether or not Rusty thinks it's efficient enough.

Rusty Shackleford

Joined: 08 May 2008

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:36 pm Post subject:

Fox wrote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

The bolded statement shows me that you don't understand what a free market in education would entail. All it means is that a student can choose which school he goes to. That means he also takes the funding he would've received at public school to what ever school will take him.(AKA a "voucher".)

If you want to spend more you can go to a more expensive school. For those who can't afford the more expensive school, scholarships would assuredly be available.

In this situation, under performing schools would go out of business and their assets would be bought up by those that offer a decent product at a decent price. This in fact would lead to a much HIGHER minimum standard of education.

Show me the data regarding nations who run their educational systems in this fashion and how they compare to nations who don't run their educational systems in this fashion?

There is actually quite a bit of data around comparing states in the US who have implemented voucher systems. If you want to educate yourself on this, google is your friend.

Quote:

As an aside, no, that's not free market education. The government is giving you a credit you can only spend on education; if all education availible fails to meet your standards, you can't simply use the money on something else. That's not the market being left to operate freely, it's a market with substantial governmental interference. Free market education is the government saying, "Go pay someone to get educated, it's no concern of ours."

This is laughable. Literally no one says this. Not even the the most ardent free market zealot. You are confusing funding with provision.

Quote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

As for your last point in that quote. I would consider anything a failure that can be done better at a lower cost by someone else.

Fine. Most of the rest of us consider something a failure if it actually fails at its stated objectives.

You're arguing semantics again. It is a massive failure if I'm coerced to do it and have no choice in the matter. Which many govt programs do.

Quote:

Rusty Shackleford wrote:

Again how can an inferior product at a higher price not be considered a failure?

No not every endeavor. Just those that I'm coerced into paying for through the tax system.

Stop bandying about the ideology word. I can just as easily sling it back at you. It's also boring and repetitive.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 1 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe