Jeremiah McAuliffe <alimhaq@no-spam> wrote in message news:<jhodfvgpctjhhkopqkgfkk05bu1v1hn3oq@no-spam>...
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 06:47:52 -0400, "Not a chance spanky" "Not a
> chance spanky"@no-spam wrote:
>
> >As for people living longer, that a bunch of BS. It's not health care
> >that leads to a difference in life expectancy -
I disagree. Todays medicine is increasingly getting better keeping
people living
longer, which also sets up for the next illness, and more care, then
more illness, then more care. If you let smokers die early, you save a
lot of money. Regardless,
I 'll bet 50% of ones earnings will be for heathcare in 15-20 years.
There should be some national health care insurance, but never mix
heath care
and insurance together.
One thing for sure, the states sure like cigarette tax, and need it.
greg
gregS wrote:
> Jeremiah McAuliffe <alimhaq@no-spam> wrote in message news:<jhodfvgpctjhhkopqkgfkk05bu1v1hn3oq@no-spam>...
> I disagree. Todays medicine is increasingly getting better keeping
> people living longer,
You first have to understand how life expectancy is calculated to
understand why it has little meaning in the discussion.
If woman X has two children in her lifetime and one of those children
lives to be 100 and the other dies a day after birth, life expectancy
for those two would be calculated at 50 years - the total number of
years lived by both children divided by the number of children is life
expectancy. That crude example tells you nothing what so ever about the
access to or the quality of their health care.
It is the US, not Europe, not Canada or any other country with a
national system that spends a disproportionate amount of health care
dollars keeping elderly people alive well beyond it makes any sense to.
In the US individuals live much longer than those in other developed
countries where as in those countries a larger number of people live to
an old age and that creates a higher life expectancy number.
The reason those countries have a higher life expectancy has very little
to directly with access to health care though. It has everything to do
with the fact that many of those countries have largely homogenous
populations absent large sub-cultures where drugs, violence and other
things that lead to the death of larger numbers of younger people as is
the case in the US. In fact, many of those countries don't even have
many young people period as a growing percentage of them leave to find
work in other parts of the world and their deaths are never counted
against the country of origins statitsitics.
The use of crack and heroin use and alcohol abuse amongst pregnant women
in the US is significantly greater than any other industrialized nation,
that leads to premature births, children with diminished health and
higher infant mortality. Efforts to provide prenatal care to those
women has proven utterly futile as drug addicts don't take the care
whether it's free or not. The number six killer in the US of people
between the ages of 25 and 40 is AIDS. It's a terminal disease and most
of the vicitms have access to treatment.
A national health care system won't change those factors or many of the
others that lead to the US having a lower life expectancy. Life
expectancy describes something, just not what most people think.
===
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
It's long been claimed that fascism is descending on American, odd that
it keeps landing on Europe.
-Unknown
The [Democrat] party never have but two objects - grand and petit larcency.
-RG Ingersoll September 21 1876
I never said all Democrats were saloon keepers. What I said was that
all saloon keepers were Democrats.
-Horace Greeley c. 1860
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are
consequences.
-RG Ingersoll
Do not lounge in the cities! There is room and health in the country,
away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west, before you are
fitted for no life but that of the factory.
-Horace Greeley 1841
gregS wrote:
> Jeremiah McAuliffe <alimhaq@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<jhodfvgpctjhhkopqkgfkk05bu1v1hn3oq@no-spam>...
> I disagree. Todays medicine is increasingly getting better keeping
> people living longer,
You first have to understand how life expectancy is calculated to
understand why it has little meaning in the discussion.
If woman X has two children in her lifetime and one of those children
lives to be 100 and the other dies a day after birth, life expectancy
for those two would be calculated at 50 years - the total number of
years lived by both children divided by the number of children is life
expectancy. That crude example tells you nothing what so ever about the
access to or the quality of their health care.
It is the US, not Europe, not Canada or any other country with a
national system that spends a disproportionate amount of health care
dollars keeping elderly people alive well beyond it makes any sense to.
In the US individuals live much longer than those in other developed
countries where as in those countries a larger number of people live to
an old age and that creates a higher life expectancy number.
The reason those countries have a higher life expectancy has very little
to directly with access to health care though. It has everything to do
with the fact that many of those countries have largely homogenous
populations absent large sub-cultures where drugs, violence and other
things that lead to the death of larger numbers of younger people as is
the case in the US. In fact, many of those countries don't even have
many young people period as a growing percentage of them leave to find
work in other parts of the world and their deaths are never counted
against the country of origin's statistics.
The use of crack and heroin use and alcohol abuse amongst pregnant women
in the US is significantly greater than any other industrialized nation,
that leads to premature births, children with diminished health and
higher infant mortality. Efforts to provide prenatal care to those
women has proven utterly futile as drug addicts don't take the care
whether it's free or not. The number six killer in the US of people
between the ages of 25 and 40 is AIDS. It's a terminal disease and most
of the victims have access to treatment.
A national health care system won't change those factors or many of the
others that lead to the US having a lower life expectancy. Life
expectancy describes something, just not what most people think.
===
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0
It's long been claimed that fascism is descending on American, odd that
it keeps landing on Europe.
-Unknown
The [Democrat] party never have but two objects - grand and petit larcency.
-RG Ingersoll September 21 1876
I never said all Democrats were saloon keepers. What I said was that
all saloon keepers were Democrats.
-Horace Greeley c. 1860
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are
consequences.
-RG Ingersoll
Do not lounge in the cities! There is room and health in the country,
away from the crowds of idlers and imbeciles. Go west, before you are
fitted for no life but that of the factory.
-Horace Greeley 1841
Mischa Gelman <mgelman@no-spam> wrote in message
<snipped>
Universal Healthcare is one of those "touchy feely" programs that the
left needs to implememnt to "feel good" about themeselves. Never mind
that Universal Health Care would tax the living shit out of everyone
making them slaves to it.
Please tell me how Socialized medicine is the solution to end all this
mess?
We cant even educate our children in the public school system and you
want to socialize health care?
If you think its a pain in the ass to have to wait two weeks to see a
doctor now, try it under socialized medicine where you have to wait up
to 2 months.
Friends of my wife who went to England had to be put on a waiting list
for two months because when she got seriously sick over there.
And what is stopping all the hypocondriacs, druggies and so forth from
flooding the Universal Health Care system preventing those who need to
see a doctor the most?
And how about the quality of care? How is the quality of care much
better under socialized medicine? Ever see the teeth on an Englishman?
>
> The current health care system is falling apart. Pay as need dictates would
> be nice, but many people cannot afford to pay. In some major cities, people
> are being turned away from emergency rooms if they lack proof of insurance.
> That's simply unconscionable.
Hospitals cannot turn people away regardless. That is just lying
leftist propaganda.
I work in health care. What happened to programs like medicaid, and
medicare?
They cover alot of people who do not have insurance.
?
>
> The public school system became politicized thanks to the PARENTS and their
> sorry-assed lawyers. Inner-city schools have become havens for drug dealing
> fuckholes and unmotivated illiterates. You can't punish, expel, or hold a
> student back without it becoming a federal case, and that's all due to the
> parents.
The politicians and their "touchy feely" ideas along with political
correctness have made the USA the laughing stock of education. Social
promotion has become the norm.
so what makes you think we can do a better job putting every citizen
in this coutnry on national healthcare?
> BTW, it looks like the private educational system isn't doing much better
> when the average college student can't spell, can't write a simple
> declarative sentence, but CAN incite a riot over sheer stupidity.
ummm...i beg to differ. I have met many a person from private schools
who are far more advanced. Please cite your unbiased sources.
> A friend of mine in Canada said that when his mother became critically ill,
> Canada provided the hospice program, greatly relieving his anxiety and
> stress.
and how long did that take? I am not talking about hospice care which
by the way you can get for free here if you look. My Uncle had it for
free. Keystone Hospice in Philadelphia to be exact.
How long does it take to see a doctor in Canada? Two months?
> Do you honestly know any British people? I do business with some and
> haven't seen any difference between their teeth and the average American's.
> You need to take a good look at the extras from Deliverance that inhabit
> rural PA and the Pittsburgh suburbs.
YEs I do no British people. And they say their health care sucks.
"Mischa Gelman" <mgelman@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F120A4D.3043C842@no-spam
>
>
> Senator Palpatine wrote:
>
> >Never mind that Universal Health Care would tax the living > shit out of
> everyone
>
> Never mind that we'd wind up paying less for health care. As long as our
> money goes to big, parasitic insurance companies rather than the
> government I guess you're happy?
What a load of crap. If that nonsense was true, we'd all be rich and getting
tax paybacks.. How many times have government drones claimed "this program
will save us 10 dollars for every one we put into it". or some such self
serving garbage.
Basically you think that if useless government drones ran health care, you'd
be making a lot more money than you are now. Like the Canadian system is so
much better. That's why people with money come here for far superior health
care. How long do they wait for an MRI up there?
Mischa Gelman wrote:
> Never mind that we'd wind up paying less for health care.
That is a rationalization on the part of the socialist that anyone who's
followed American politics for any length of time finds difficult to
swallow.
What US government program can you point to that has lowered costs?
Most people who study the current problems in our health system point to
government involvement as a major contributor to rising costs.
Even if you ignore all the evidence that suggests otherwise and assume
that the European systems costs less than ours, it's still the fact of
the matter that our politics system is different, our culture is
different and the expectations for a health care system would be
different. Just because something "works" there, it isn't a given that
it'll work here.
Many people, including myself, don't believe for moment that the
leadership off the two parties in this country can be trusted to oversee
a health care care system, run it efficiently or without corruption.
They've never achieved it any other program they run, why would they
with health care?
I've asked several times through out this discussion Mischa and you've
not attempted to respond once...
Point to one piece of evidence, give me one good reason I should believe
that once the government gets control of health care those resources
won't be misused by politicians to curry favor with their constituents?
Even if you convinced me that on paper cost could be lowered, which you
have a long way to go on, everything I see, everything I hear, everyday
I hear a Democrat or a Green express their views, I'm more convinced
that as a working age, Caucasian, male my health care and my health,
that of my son's, would be sacrificed at the drop of a hat if it meant
Clinton, Pelosi and Dean could gain politically from it.
And if you're on the opposite side of the political spectrum why would
you be inclined to trust Republicans not to do the same to you?
> As long as our
> money goes to big, parasitic insurance companies rather than the
> government I guess you're happy?
As long as I'm getting care for myself and my family I'm happy Mischa
and I'm not convinced that will continue to be the case under ANY plan
implemented in this country.
Absent a plan and just listening to the current debate on health care
issues, hearing the sick, twisted priorities of people who think that
abortion and birth control are the equivalent of medication required to
illness or its consequences, that think it's right to spend 100 times as
much on breast cancer research and treatment than is spent on prostate
cancer and it makes sense spend more on AIDS than either of those...
I don't believe for a second that my son or I will get the care or
consideration as my wife or daughter if national health care ever takes
root in this country.
Working age, white males are expendable to certain politicians Mischa,
always have been, always will be Mischa and their views are reflected in
every legislative action they take ...
And I'm going to fight them gaining control of my health care until my
dying breath.
> Because those countries with socialized medicine have more efficient
> systems and lower costs?
Nonsense, you're comparing apples and monkey wrenches.
Those systems are different, they offer lower levels of care and far
less sophisticated treatments and options.
Lowering the cost here is as simple as reducing applying a simple
cost/benefit analysis and refusing to offer expensive treatments for
illnesses that affect a small number of people or that don't have high
probabilities of success.
Maybe you're not old enough to remember the details of the debate over
the Clinton proposal Mischa, but those of use who are will recall that
what support for the plan there was all but evaporated on one single
event...
Which was when Senator Specter, who'd been recently diagnosed with and
treated for a rare brain tumor, questioned an administration official
and supporter of the program about how his illness would have been
treated under the proposal and that person was forced to concede that
neither the Senator nor anyone else would have been able to get the
diagnostic test done or treatment for the illness and would have almost
certainly died under the proposed system.
That is the reality of national systems with lower costs Mischa.
> Because a system that relies on middlemen taking large cuts for themselves
> will obviously cost more?
> Because a system with no central organization leads to chaos?
As oppose to a system with central organization which leads to
corruption, abuse and arbitrary decisions or decisions based on the self
interests of those in the organization.
> 1) Sorry, but most parents think our public schools are doing a good job -
> 71% in the 2002 poll, up from 62% 4 years ago.
Most of those parents were "educated" in the public system themselves
and thus to stupid and poorly educated to know any better.
The test results and the standing of American school children with
students from other industrialized countries speaks for itself.
Public education in the US is nothing more than a jobs program for the
teachers union, we spend more money and hours per child and the results
are dismal...
And there's no reason to expect a national health care system in this
country won't produce the exact same result.
> Because people live longer in countries with socialized medicine?
No they don't. More people live what is considered a normal human life
span in those countries and few people like yourself understand what
life expectancy numbers tell us and why they're lower here.
> Because
> the infant mortality rates are lower?
Indeed they are, but efforts to get drug and alcohol addicted pregnant
women in urban areas to use make use of prenatal care even when it's
free have proven futile.
Lack of health care isn't the problem here, lack of responsibility and
care on the part of certain segment of society's pregnant women is.
> Because basically every indication
> of health is better? Oh, so, I'm using facts. I know how that affects
> right-wing ideologues.
You're not using facts at all, you're distorting the meaning of statistics.
If you wanted to use facts you'd take those statistics and make an
effort to understand what they mean, what are the factors contributing
to their existence... which you are not doing.
>>Ever see the teeth on an Englishman?
>
>
> One of the psychologists is English and has nice teeth, but I have no idea
> how long he's lived in the States. So - more efficient system, cheaper
> cost, no one goes uninsured vs. bad teeth - hmm. Tough call. I'll go for
> what's behind door number one.
Don't know any Englishmen, but I do have some neighbors from Italy who
argue with our pro socialized medicine Democrat friends & neighbors and
tell them they have no idea what their talking about and that they'll be
sorry when the US adopts a national system. I also knew a German couple
on our street who'd lived in the US for several years had two children
here and was expecting their third when her husband's contract was up
and they had to go "home." She cried nearly everyday for three months
at the prospect of having to deal with their system and the doctors again.
Paul Galvanek - Ver. 4.0