How socialized medicine saves...

[Yonivore]

...money: England example #4,237,273 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213498/Report-warns-doctors-snub-families-terminally-ill-amid-growing-use-death-pathway.html):


“More than a quarter of families are not told when life support is withdrawn from terminally-ill loved ones, a report has found,” the London Daily Mail reported.

That's a "death" panel action, folks.


“Experts warn that growing use of a controversial ‘death pathway’ is seeing some patients killed off prematurely,” the London Daily Mail reported.

“Earlier this month, a group of experts wrote to a national newspaper, saying the pathway was ending the lives of those who may have had months left in them,” the London Daily Mail reported.
England devotes about 10% of its economy to caring for its sick and wounded people.

The United States devotes 16%.

And we are criticized and England is praised?

The world has gone mad.

[SouthernFried]

Man... it's free dude!

[ChumpDumper]

Can you show me where the single payer plan is in the current bills?

[Nbadan]

Can you show me where the single payer plan is in the current bills?

Now, now, chumpy don't confuse them with facts.. you'll ruin the talking point..

[boutons_deux]

End-of-life care in USA, ICUs, $5000/month chemo, etc, like funerals, are HUGE business, not "devoted" exercises in sympathetic humanitarianism.

I'd love to know how much was spent on Dirty Dancer (my guess is better part of $1M in 18 months), when EVERYBODY knows pancreatic cancer is relentless, inescapable killer, always terminal.

iow, $1M bought DD an additional 3 months, 3 weeks?

death panel is excellent demagogic phrasing, but it's still counter-productive to intelligent discussion of a very difficult end-of-life subject that US society has not addressed.

Meanwhile, the health care business will stuff its pockets with $Bs "taking care" of terminal patients, aka, milk cows.

[boutons_deux]

And Yoni's perennially tortured logic of "America really doesn't have a comparatively horrible peri-natal mortality rate because America saves more preemies" is ridiculous.

Many preemies just aren't viable.

The technology and skills to save them are impressive (we can save them), but very often preemies grow into children and young adults with all kinds of chronic diseases and weaknesses due to their bodies' systems (heart, lungs, immune, kidneys, etc) not being fully developed and not completing maturation after premature birth. (but should we save them?)

But that very richly runs up the health care revenues for their entire, probably shortened, lifetime, while impoverishing the parents. BOL and EOL questions are very difficult, but richly rewarding for the health profit system.

The real question is why "The rate of premature birth has increased by 36 percent since the early 1980s"

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1157.asp

What the hell's gone wrong with women? and/or men's sperm in the last 30+ years?

100s of 1000s of years of species-strengthening natural selection in very adverse circumstance got us here, and now we have created a "lifestyle" (essentially bad diet and pervasive chemical pollution) that weakens and reverses the most fundamental strengths of the species.

[SpurNation]

^^^ Are you suggesting that terminal patients and premature births be denied health coverage because of their condition?

That's what I perceive in this post.

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lmao

Yet a single payer system isn't in any bills in the senate or congress.. don't let facts get in the way of a good rant..

[spurster]

This must be why the United Kingdom has a higher life expectancy than the US.

[boutons_deux]

"That's what I perceive in this post."

were you a preemie? brain-damaged?

[SouthernFried]

The GOVT ain't getting involved with your HEALTHCARE!!

This thousand page, multi-billion dollar health care bill...pfftt. Don't worry about it, man.

Buncha paranoid crazies.

[Shastafarian]

The GOVT ain't getting involved with your HEALTHCARE!!

This thousand page, multi-billion dollar health care bill...pfftt. Don't worry about it, man.

Buncha paranoid crazies.

Wait, so there is mention of single-payer in the bill?

[SouthernFried]

Wait, so there is mention of single-payer in the bill?

Absolutely not. OBAMA is totally abandoning the public option altogether.

People worried about GOVT taking over the Health care industry...are just paranoid losers. Cuz, govt wont take it over...they'll just make it free. I mean, c'mon...this is a good thing.

[Shastafarian]

Absolutely not. OBAMA is totally abandoning the public option altogether. You don't know the difference between single-payer and public option? Kinda sad.


People worried about GOVT taking over the Health care industry...are just paranoid losers. Cuz, govt wont take it over...they'll just make it free. I mean, c'mon...this is a good thing.
You can stop now.

[SouthernFried]

Single payer is out...but the public option is in? The public option will still give me free healthcare wont it? I mean, I don't really care what they call it...as long as it's free, and the govt ain't involved in running anything.

[SouthernFried]

...errrrr

[Winehole23]

Nobody claims it's free, or that government is uninvolved. You're impersonating absent speakers. Fall out of love with your own strawman already.

Feel free to join the conversation anytime you like, SF.

Or be a broken record. Up to you.

[greyforest]

100s of 1000s of years of species-strengthening natural selection in very adverse circumstance got us here, and now we have created a "lifestyle" (essentially bad diet and pervasive chemical pollution) that weakens and reverses the most fundamental strengths of the species.

there was a pretty unpopular dude who realized this

adolf hitler

[LnGrrrR]

there was a pretty unpopular dude who realized this

adolf hitler

/thread (godwin)

[boutons_deux]

Hitler card!!

Eugenics has nothing to do with my comments. You a preemie, too?

GF, GFY

[SouthernFried]

What...it's not free, and govt is involved?

Well..well...how much is it gonna cost me? And how much is govt gonna control things?

Damn, I thought govt wasn't gonna run anything and it would free. What about those who can't afford it? I heard it was gonna cost billions, but...it would be free to those who can't afford it.

[Winehole23]

Do you know what insurance mandates are? McCain ran on it, Obama ran against it. Now it's in the Baucus bill.

TANSTAAFL.

[spurster]

It's also a good thing we don't have socialized medicine for old people in the US.

[greyforest]

/thread (godwin)

this is stupid because as any discussion's length approaches infinity, the chance that X topic arises approaches 100%




Hitler card!!

Eugenics has nothing to do with my comments. You a preemie, too?

GF, GFY



100s of 1000s of years of species-strengthening natural selection in very adverse circumstance got us here, and now we have created a "lifestyle" that weakens and reverses the most fundamental strengths of the species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

[LnGrrrR]

Natural selection != eugenics

Fail

[greyforest]

100s of 1000s of years of species-strengthening natural selection in very adverse circumstance got us here, and now we have created a "lifestyle" that weakens and reverses the most fundamental strengths of the species.

this sentence is literally the basis of eugenics

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, I thought govt wasn't gonna run anything and it would free.Well, you're just stupid or ignorant.

[boutons_deux]

"literally the basis of eugenics"

eugenics is getting preferred people (eg, me and Spurs starters) to reproduce, while stopping unpreferred people (eg,"People of Walmart" and Glenn Beck devotees) from reproducing.

Now, just run along and GFY.

[LnGrrrR]

this sentence is literally the basis of eugenics

And here we see how ignorant you are. Eugenics is determining who should breed or be eliminated by HUMANITY. Natural selection is nature determining who lives and dies.

Or are you really too dumb to tell the difference?

[greyforest]

"literally the basis of eugenics"

eugenics is getting preferred people (eg, me and Spurs starters) to reproduce, while stopping unpreferred people (eg,"People of Walmart" and Glenn Beck devotees) from reproducing.

Now, just run along and GFY.


And here we see how ignorant you are. Eugenics is determining who should breed or be eliminated by HUMANITY. Natural selection is nature determining who lives and dies.

Or are you really too dumb to tell the difference?

eugenics is the human-invented replacement for natural selection. natural selection for humans is severely hindered in today's lifestyle...i quote again:


we have created a "lifestyle" that weakens and reverses the most fundamental strengths of the species.

this isn't limited to the two exceedingly narrow examples you gave (bad diet and pervasive chemical pollution). humanity is rife with morality, and we don't slaughter quasimodos anymore. nature is too cruel, so when a baby with a congenital heart defect is born, we surgically correct this defect. where nature would have eliminated these defective genes from earth, we unnaturally cause them to survive on. we build them wal-marts, give them food stamps, and even pay them per child to replicate their shitty genetics with welfare.

non idiotic people see this as an obvious detriment to society and humanity. these people believe in eugenics, the replacement for natural selection.

i'm gonna quote this one last time, which is pitiful since i've quoted it so much, and doubly pitiful since one of you fucking wrote it (lol).


we have created a "lifestyle" that weakens and reverses the most fundamental strengths of the species.

this is the exact reason eugenics was invented. if you don't see how, you both should thank your respective deities that hitler didn't win, because both of you would be eugenically selected against.

that was the only point i was trying to make.

[nuclearfm]

Single payer healthcare is not on the table anyway, but I'm going to say it is.

"Non-white" people are losing this country to the Jews and their black henchman



Fixed

[greyforest]

Many preemies just aren't viable.

The technology and skills to save them are impressive (we can save them), but very often preemies grow into children and young adults with all kinds of chronic diseases and weaknesses due to their bodies' systems (heart, lungs, immune, kidneys, etc) not being fully developed and not completing maturation after premature birth. (but should we save them?)

But that very richly runs up the health care revenues for their entire, probably shortened, lifetime, while impoverishing the parents. BOL and EOL questions are very difficult, but richly rewarding for the health profit system.

The real question is why "The rate of premature birth has increased by 36 percent since the early 1980s"

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1157.asp

What the hell's gone wrong with women? and/or men's sperm in the last 30+ years?

100s of 1000s of years of species-strengthening natural selection in very adverse circumstance got us here, and now we have created a "lifestyle" (essentially bad diet and pervasive chemical pollution) that weakens and reverses the most fundamental strengths of the species.





Eugenics has nothing to do with my comments. You a preemie, too?

GF, GFY

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

jesus its like im on another planet

[boutons_deux]

"Single payer healthcare is not on the table"

It should be, and will be.

Magic Negro will then be able to negotiate/screw down BigPharma and medical equipment/device suppliers to price levels those suppliers charge in other countries, which pay a lot less for same stuff as US does.

iow, the US citizens, aka suckers, are subsidizing lower drug/equipment prices for foreign countries' govt-single-purchasers.

[SpurNation]

"That's what I perceive in this post."

were you a preemie? brain-damaged?

My cousin was a preemie. I (along with other family members) spent days, weeks helping my aunt and uncle through the unkowing time before he was released to go home.

Afterwards...my aunt and uncle spent countless money in deductibles, out of pocket expenses and sacrifices helping him to grow beyond the point of danger.

32 years later...He (my cousin) is now a healthy, productive person in the state of Florida.

Brain Damage?...yes I've had brain damage suffered while playing high school sports. I've had to live with the consequences of that damage for almost 33 years. But have managed to achieve a college degree...rear 6 wonderful children...have a wonderful wife...and own my own business.

Not easy...I have to double think and triple look at anything I say or write because though I might know in my mind what I want to say...sometimes it comes out different than what I'm thinking. And more than likely will only get worse as age wears on.

Point is...what were you referring to?

[Yonivore]

"Single payer healthcare is not on the table"

It should be, and will be.

Magic Negro will then be able to negotiate/screw down BigPharma and medical equipment/device suppliers to price levels those suppliers charge in other countries, which pay a lot less for same stuff as US does.

iow, the US citizens, aka suckers, are subsidizing lower drug/equipment prices for foreign countries' govt-single-purchasers.
Face it, ObamaCare is dead. They lost their last Republican today...Hell, even Rockefeller is opposed to it now.

The "public" option -- in any form -- won't pass muster with the Republicans and many Democrats and any plan without it, won't pass muster of the looney left base in the Democrat party.

He's screwed the pooch on health care reform. The best he can do now is hope the Republicans will throw him a bone and help him draft sensible health care reform legislation the public will accept.

[mogrovejo]

The idea that the "public option" would hurt the health industry strikes me as very odd. I'd be extremely happy if I were them and such a policy was adopted. I mean, do you think the military industry, that has the government as their only client, has been doing badly? There isn't a better client than the government...

[SpurNation]

There isn't a better client than the government...

The government isn't constrained to fiscal accountability.

[greyforest]

The government isn't constrained to fiscal accountability.

neither are us companies too big to fail

[boutons_deux]

"won't pass muster with the Republicans"

nothing will pass muster with the Repugs.

The Dems don't need the Repugs, they've got the numbers in the House, and reconciliation in the Senate.

The Repugs play only obstructionist hard ball, and it's past time the Dems return the favor.

[SpurNation]

neither are us companies too big to fail

They're just bought out by other big companies.

[SpurNation]

The Repugs play only obstructionist hard ball, and it's past time the Dems return the favor.

Many Dems aren't "Dems".

[Yonivore]

Lost the Senate Majority leader...

Harry Reid: Health care bill won’t work for Nevada (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/sep/16/harry-reid-health-care-bill-wont-work-nevada/)

[greyforest]

They're just bought out by other big companies.

if you want to call the govt a company, yeah i suppose. not a big leap of logic!

[LnGrrrR]

eugenics is the human-invented replacement for natural selection. natural selection for humans is severely hindered in today's lifestyle...i quote again:


Natural selection: Occurs naturally. Nature selects those who thrive the most in particular instances. STILL OCCURRING. Not moral or immoral, but amoral.

Eugenics: Obviously, does not occur naturally. Governed by human bias. Immoral. Does not normally occur.

There's your difference! Thanks for playing.

[LnGrrrR]

Also, your claim that natural selection is no longer functioning is laughable. Or do people not choose their mates anymore?

[TFloss32]

death panel is excellent demagogic phrasing, but it's still counter-productive to intelligent discussion of a very difficult end-of-life subject that US society has not addressed.

Meanwhile, the health care business will stuff its pockets with $Bs "taking care" of terminal patients, aka, milk cows.

I agree with you that "death panel" is a harsh term that's used by political leaders who oppose socialized medicine for the sake of argument. However, sometimes a little bit of shock value is needed to make your point. Is it, in fact, counter productive? If you're not milking the cow...then what are you doing? Killing it?

[greyforest]

Natural selection: Occurs naturally. Nature selects those who thrive the most in particular instances. STILL OCCURRING. Not moral or immoral, but amoral.

Eugenics: Obviously, does not occur naturally. Governed by human bias. Immoral. Does not normally occur.

There's your difference! Thanks for playing.


Also, your claim that natural selection is no longer functioning is laughable. Or do people not choose their mates anymore?

i didn't say its not functioning, i said that it is severely hindered, then i gave multiple examples of why. you aren't even reading or comprehending what i'm saying so i'm not even going to bother re-quoting what i've said. go re-read it all four or five times and then argue.

[LnGrrrR]

i didn't say its not functioning, i said that it is severely hindered, then i gave multiple examples of why. you aren't even reading or comprehending what i'm saying so i'm not even going to bother re-quoting what i've said. go re-read it all four or five times and then argue.

Perhaps it is not my reading comprehension at fault, but your ability to communicate clearly.

You believe that it's severely hindered because sabretooth tigers are around eating the slow ones. That's a severely limited view. Natural selection is working the same as it did before; it's just that the abilities needed to survive are different.

Can a man with a physical deformity live longer than he might have before? Of course. But he will have to win a job over others to maintain food, and he will have to win over a mate to produce offspring.

As long as people are still self-selecting mates, then natural selection is still occurring fine.

[z0sa]

And Yoni's perennially tortured logic of "America really doesn't have a comparatively horrible peri-natal mortality rate because America saves more preemies" is ridiculous.

Many preemies just aren't viable.

The technology and skills to save them are impressive (we can save them), but very often preemies grow into children and young adults with all kinds of chronic diseases and weaknesses due to their bodies' systems (heart, lungs, immune, kidneys, etc) not being fully developed and not completing maturation after premature birth. (but should we save them?)

But that very richly runs up the health care revenues for their entire, probably shortened, lifetime, while impoverishing the parents. BOL and EOL questions are very difficult, but richly rewarding for the health profit system.

The real question is why "The rate of premature birth has increased by 36 percent since the early 1980s"

http://www.marchofdimes.com/professionals/14332_1157.asp

What the hell's gone wrong with women? and/or men's sperm in the last 30+ years?

100s of 1000s of years of species-strengthening natural selection in very adverse circumstance got us here, and now we have created a "lifestyle" (essentially bad diet and pervasive chemical pollution) that weakens and reverses the most fundamental strengths of the species.



no need to continue convincing us - we all know you are one seriously fucked up individual.

[MiamiHeat]

Can someone please show me where Obama says that we all have to quit our current health care plans and join a single payer, government run system?

Check the facts, please.

[Soul_Patch]

It is disgusting how many people fight for or against this health care bill based soley on being able to say "WE WON!" or "WE KICKED YOUR ASS YOU LOST!"

id venture to guess more than half of the most outspoken people dont give a shit about the bill itself, and are more concerned with NOT LOSING!

terrible.

[boutons_deux]

"single payer, government run"

two different things. try to pay attention.

medicare/medicaid are already single-payer (but prevented by Repug law from negotiating drugs down as a Big Single Buyer)

[George Gervin's Afro]

Can someone please show me where Obama says that we all have to quit our current health care plans and join a single payer, government run system?

Check the facts, please.

Did you ever get an answer? No one ever answers this question... that's weird..

[boutons_deux]

... because MN doesn't say it.

Only the liars using scare tactics to rouse their rabble say it.

[boutons_deux]

Here's how for-profit US medical system waste lives

========
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs_v3/prescriptions/prescriptions_print.png (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/)

http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_remote.html?type=noscript&page=blog.nytimes.com/prescriptions&posall=Bar1,TopAd,Position1,Position1B,Top5,SponLi nk,SponLink2,SFMiddle,Box1,Box3,Bottom3,Right5A,Ri ght6A,Right7A,Right8A,Middle1C,Bottom7,Bottom8,Bot tom9,Inv1,Inv2,Inv3,tacoda,SOS,CcolumnSS,Middle4,L eft1B,Frame6A,Left2,Left3,Left4,Left5,Left6,Left7, Left8,Left9,JMNow1,JMNow2,JMNow3,JMNow4,JMNow5,JMN ow6,Feature1,ADX_CLIENTSIDE&pos=Position1B&query=qstring&keywords=? (http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=cookie&pos=Position1B)
September 17, 2009, 4:14 pm

Harvard Medical Study Links Lack of Insurance to 45,000 U.S. Deaths a Year

By Reed Abelson (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/author/reed-abelson/) As the White House and Congress continue debating how best to provide coverage to tens of millions of Americans currently without health insurance, a new study (PDF) (http://pnhp.org/excessdeaths/health-insurance-and-mortality-in-US-adults.pdf)is meant to offer a stark reminder of why lawmakers should continue to try. Researchers from Harvard Medical School say the lack of coverage can be tied to about 45,000 deaths a year in the United States — a toll that is greater than the number of people who die each year from kidney disease.

“If you extend coverage, you can save lives,” said Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a professor of medicine at Harvard who is one of the study’s authors. The research is being published in the December issue of the American Journal of Public Health and was posted online Thursday.

The Harvard study found that people without health insurance had a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance — as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. The risk appears to have increased since 1993, when a similar study found the risk of death was 25 percent greater for the uninsured.

The increase in risk, according to the study, is likely to be a result of at least two factors. One is the greater difficulty the uninsured have today in finding care, as public hospitals have closed or cut back on services. The other is improvements in medical care for insured people with treatable chronic conditions like high blood pressure.

“As health care for the insured gets better, the gap between the insured and uninsured widens,” Dr. Woolhandler said.

( ah! key point, notice "gets better" doesn't say "gets cheaper". It gets a lot more expensive, and more and more people get priced out of the market. But that's how the free market works. If you're a loser and can't get job and/or are sick, you die. Social/economic Darwinism )

The researchers also concluded that other ways of delivering care to the uninsured, like providing them with community health centers, are not adequate substitutes for health insurance. Individuals need the access to hospitals and specialists that comes only with adequate insurance coverage, Dr. Woolhander said.

Dr. Woolhandler said the study should prompt policymakers in Washington to consider the impact of scaling back any effort to provide truly universal coverage. She expressed concern about some lawmakers’ willingness to adopt a plan that could expand coverage to only a portion of the nearly 50 million people who are without health insurance. As a proponent for a single-payer system — something like Medicare for all — she said she was also disappointed in the current proposals before Congress.

Dr. Woolhandler, who has also conducted extensive research on medical-related bankruptcies, cautioned that expanding coverage would not be meaningful if the coverage is not generous enough. People might still not be able to afford care if they have to pay large deductibles or too great a share of their over all medical bills.

“Health insurance can only make you healthier if you have access to care,” she said.



Copyright 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter/help/copyright.html) The New York Times Company (http://www.nytco.com/)