Vermont single payer health insurance

[g8terh8ter_eric]

People have better things in life to buy than insurance, like beer, cigarettes, and hookers. I don't buy any of those 3, therefore I have insurance.

 

[utgibbs]

I don't think the fact that the us's health system is market-based is what drives up costs.

It's a combination of high level of development, malpractice and other insurance costs for practitioners, poor health maintenance on an individual level, etc.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I think the data suggests otherwise. The three countries with the largest inputs from private insurance have the highest costs per capita.

In addition, it's basic economics: 1. health care is not a market, 2. no incentive for private efficiency in a system whose goal is to be utilized as infrequently as possible.

 

[utgibbs]

Huh?

Cost:

Highest mortality, heart disease. Annual US cost as of 2008: ~$273 Billion

Annual UK cost in 2006: ~ $47 Billion

Causation? We have double the obesity rate, higher incidence of new cases and higher costs for prolonged care.

Does that mean the UK system is better simply because it costs less? No, that is correlation with no regard for causation.

Infant mortality:

US: 1 in 8 births are premature (~12.5%).
UK: ~8.6% as of 2008.

Know what causes the most infant mortality? Premature birth.

Does that mean their system is better simply because they have a lower infant mortality? No, that would be correlation with no regard for causation.

Notice the lack of discussion from one side about the obesity and premature birth correlations. How incredibly predictable.

It was because I got bored with people not knowing what they were talking about:

US obesity rate: 30.6%
UK obesity rate: 23%

Obesity statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/opad10/Statistics_on_Obesity_Physical_Activity_and_Diet_England_2010.pdf

Also you can destroy fl0at's heart disease diatribe with one word: genes. A small "causation" left out of his heart disease dissertation.

No matter. It is clear he, as you, suffers from Mark Twain's old addage: It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

You have a tendency, KPT, to back the wrong horse, and you remain true to form.

Game.... Set..... Match!

Bored now. Single-payer system = better care at lower cost. Nobody can deny it; nobody can provide one shred of evidence to the contrary.

 

[milohimself]

The reason nobody is able to provide evidence to the contrary is that nobody else is the level of privatization here. It's apples to oranges, even the most privatized countries outside of the US in terms of health care still use a far, far higher percentage of public funding.

Our health system costs far, far more than any other country to run. If you want to believe that its market nature is the sole reason for that, I don't know what to tell you. There are the absolute undeniable factors of high risks in this country ranging from poor lifestyle choices to genetics, on top of salaries demanded by practitioners, covering the cost of the uninsured and/or those unable to pay, illegally present persons and high-ticket items like malpractice insurance. Not to mention some of that cost goes to some of the best care in the world (granted, to those who can afford it).

Change in the environment so that more people can be more proactive about their own health and thus go to the doctor less, tightening the reins on suits filed against practitioners as well as care given to illegally present people, etc. and I think that would be more than a good step towards getting our percent of GDP spending on health care in line with the rest of the world.

I think there are some perfectly valid arguments for socialized health care, but a well-run and regulated private system can guarantee the lowest possible prices to the people who will actually be paying for these services.

Your argument seems to be nothing more than "we are the most privatized, yet the most expensive." the reality is there are far more contributing factors than that, which I outlined above.

Yes, we have a highly privatized system which is not working. I recognize that, but you have yet to point out why that system won't work, given the provision that care is available and reasonably affordable to all.

 

[kptvol]

It was because I got bored with people not knowing what they were talking about:

US obesity rate: 30.6%
UK obesity rate: 23%

Obesity statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publi...y_Physical_Activity_and_Diet_England_2010.pdf

Also you can destroy fl0at's heart disease diatribe with one word: genes. A small "causation" left out of his heart disease dissertation.

No matter. It is clear he, as you, suffers from Mark Twain's old addage: It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble; it's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

You have a tendency, KPT, to back the wrong horse, and you remain true to form.

Game.... Set..... Match!

Bored now. Single-payer system = better care at lower cost. Nobody can deny it; nobody can provide one shred of evidence to the contrary.

Pretty awesome how the second article you linked estimates the obesity percentage in England is 9.9%.

 

[kptvol]

Also you can destroy fl0at's heart disease diatribe with one word: genes. A small "causation" left out of his heart disease dissertation.

Yeah, but mention African Americans have a proven higher incidence of some diseases and you're a racist trying to divert the argument. Brilliant stuff here.

 

[utgibbs]

Pretty awesome how the second article you linked estimates the obesity percentage in England is 9.9%.

Yeah, but mention African Americans have a proven higher incidence of some diseases and you're a racist trying to divert the argument. Brilliant stuff here.

In your desperation to soothe your chaffed behind I have taken behind the woodshed, you don't even read the Main Findings?

from p6 of the second link:

Main findings:
Obesity
• In 2008, almost a quarter of adults (24% of men and 25% of women aged 16 or over) in England were classified as obese (BMI 30kg/m2 or over).

Could either of you look more foolish at this point?

It gets worse. Even if we accept everything you have written on this subject (which, conclusively and unambiguously we should not), all you have done is prove the single-payer systems are no worse than our own, but at a fraction of the cost.

Which = efficiency.

As far as your race card, it's too damn foolish to entertain.

Game, Set, and Match, and it was all too easy.

 

[fl0at]

from p6 of the second link:



Could either of you look more foolish at this point?

As far as your race card, it's too damn foolish to entertain.

Game, Set, and Match, and it was all too easy.

You don't understand the difference between prevalence and incidence do you? Which word did kpt use? Hm.

Now, as to his statement on prevalence with regards to minority populations, check CDC if you please:
Obesity and Overweight for Professionals: Data and Statistics: U.S. Obesity Trends | DNPAO | CDC

Scroll down to Obesity and Ethnicity.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[kptvol]

In your desperation to soothe your chaffed behind I have taken behind the woodshed, you don't even read the Main Findings?

from p6 of the second link:



Could either of you look more foolish at this point?

It gets worse. Even if we accept everything you have written on this subject (which, conclusively and unambiguously we should not), all you have done is prove the single-payer systems are no worse than our own, but at a fraction of the cost.

Which = efficiency.

As far as your race card, it's too damn foolish to entertain.

Game, Set, and Match, and it was all too easy.

You know any docs that have practiced in England and the US? I know several. The consensus is pretty clear.

As for the race card, maybe you should take some classes in pathology or just watch a damn episode of House. You look at a person's race to determine what disease they are likely to have. It's just the way it is.

 

[kptvol]

Could either of you look more foolish at this point?

Yes. The key is to simultaneously pair arrogance, a condescending tone, and ignorance. I've seen it done about 5,381 times now.

 

[utvolpj]

sounds fun

BBC News - Surgeons raise alarm over waiting

Surgeons say patients in some parts of England have spent months waiting in pain because of delayed operations or new restrictions on who qualifies for treatment.
In several areas routine surgery was put on hold for months, while in many others new thresholds for hip and knee replacements have been introduced.

 

[fl0at]

Also you can destroy fl0at's heart disease diatribe with one word: genes. A small "causation" left out of his heart disease dissertation.

Laughable. And what about that can you change with lifestyle and treatment gibbs?

Can you alter the fact that males also are at a higher risk? No.

Hereditary concerns are risk factors, for sure. Lifestyle issues are manageable through care, which is the discussion.

Since 1993, UK's obesity rate has very nearly doubled. Unless you just happen to believe it was all genetics at play?

Furthermore:

In 2002, the direct cost of treating obesity was estimated at between 45.8 and 49.0 million and between 945 million and 1,075 million for treating the consequences of obesity;

You see direct costs? You see indirect costs? You see the difference in scale, and yet you can't grasp the concept that our costs are so much higher due to our increased prevalence and incidence of obesity?

I'm sure its just all genetics, though...

 

[fl0at]

As for the race card, maybe you should take some classes in pathology or just watch a damn episode of House. You look at a person's race to determine what disease they are likely to have. It's just the way it is.

I find it amusing that Gibbs tries to play genetics when it comes to risk factors for heart disease, but can't grasp the idea that hey... different races have different genetic concerns.

In the UK, I do believe, during pregnancy, fetal Rh factors are genotyped to determine whether or not an Rh negative mother is carrying an Rh positive child. If so, measures can be taken to avoid the mother's immune system attacking the fetus. It is very cost effective.

Know why we can't do it here? Pure racism, I'm sure, but African Americans have a higher prevalence of atypical antibodies... so we can't. Our population is more diverse.

But hey, by switching to the NHS system, we can be more efficient and save money... at the cost of only several thousand lives a year. No big deal, I'm sure.

 

[utgibbs]

You listed five factors contributing to heart disease. You said this was "causation".

All I did was say, you missed one. A biggie. It rendered your argument moot.

I find it hilarious y'all have jumped on the "obseogenic" environment and lifestyle we have now - a theme I have regreted and bemoaned for a long time on this site.

I find it hilarious you claimed the UK obesity rate was double our own. When the real figures are 31 / 24 (%).

And finally, I find it triply hilarious you have still only maintained the UK system is at least as good as our own but a fraction of the cost. Not in just absolutely terms, but in per capita terms. In other words proving me right as rain.

 

[kptvol]

And finally, I find it triply hilarious you have still only maintained the UK system is at least as good as our own but a fraction of the cost. Not in just absolutely terms, but in per capita terms. In other words proving me right as rain.

Your fantasy world is fairly hilarious.

 

[utgibbs]

I find it amusing that Gibbs tries to play genetics when it comes to risk factors for heart disease, but can't grasp the idea that hey... different races have different genetic concerns.

I've never said anything of the sort. You listed your factors for heart disease and said these were the causes, and you were dismissed (all too easily) with a single word.

Moreover, your points are laughable and transparently childish:

Breakout of Cuban ethnicities (CIA World Factbook):

51% Mulatto
37% White
11% Black
1% Chinese

And there is a LOT more where that came from (from a population where 40% smoke). But, please, continue. The woodshed awaits!

Game, Set, and Match (again).

 

[fl0at]

You listed five factors contributing to heart disease. You said this was "causation".

All I did was say, you missed one. A biggie. It rendered your argument moot.

No, I said obesity was causation for increased cost. I used risk factors associated with obesity to show increased incidence of heart disease, the number one issue in health care in America.

Heart disease risk is greatly increased by obesity, and secondary issues that arise from obesity (low HDL, high total cholesterol and diabetes).

Trying to say that genetic predisposition to heart disease is the reason we have heart disease as the number one issue is laughable. Obesity is the major concern that is medically relevant in PREVENTION of heart disease and thus reduction of cost.

Moot would be trying to play genetics in light of obesity. Not the other way around.

 

[fl0at]

I've never said anything of the sort. You listed your factors for heart disease and said these were the causes, and you were dismissed (all too easily) with a single word.

Really? Please, what percentage of new cases of heart disease are solely related to genetics?

And just what are you trying to show based on your infant mortality graph?

That whites have a high level of infant mortality, relative to the UK? Of course they do, the US has a higher incidence of premature births. Period.

 

[utgibbs]

Really? Please, what percentage of new cases of heart disease are solely related to genetics?

And just what are you trying to show based on your infant mortality graph?

That whites have a high level of infant mortality, relative to the UK? Of course they do, the US has a higher incidence of premature births. Period.

So, where exactly does your "race" factor fit in?

When it suits you?

Heart Disease (Age Adjusted mortality rates (per 100k), 2000, I05-I52):
USA: 239

Cuba: 215

Coronary Heart Disease (year 2000, I20-I25):
USA: 172

Cuba: 167

You've got a lot of explaining to do. The real world just doesn't go away. I believe we've gotten worse over the decade as well.

The real world always wins.

 

[utgibbs]

By the way -

By your own dissertations, you have only proven the single-payer systems are no worse than our own. At a fraction of the cost.

Please explain what efficiency means. :hi:

 

[fl0at]

So, where exactly does your "race" factor fit in?

With regards to what? At what point did I speak on race with regards to infant mortality? It does play a role, absolutely, but it isn't some sort of "superiority" thing that you are making it out to be.

Heart Disease (Age Adjusted mortality rates (per 100k), 2000, I05-I52):

USA: 239

Cuba: 215

Coronary Heart Disease (year 2000, I20-I25)

USA: 172

Cuba: 167

You've got a lot of explaining to do. The real world just doesn't go away. I believe we've gotten worse over the decade as well.

The real world always wins.

And you are showing, what, here? That people die from heart disease? Holy wow, call the CDC... they'll want to hear about this... it is groundbreaking.

 

[fl0at]

By the way -

By your own dissertations, you have only proven the single-payer systems are no worse than our own. At a fraction of the cost.

Please explain what efficiency means. :hi:

No, we haven't. What you don't grasp is that we are not saying that a single-payer system doesn't work for some. We are saying that a single payer system will not work here.

There is a huge difference.

 

[utgibbs]

No, we haven't. What you don't grasp is that we are not saying that a single-payer system doesn't work for some. We are saying that a single payer system will not work here.

There is a huge difference.

Reasons?

 

[fl0at]

Reasons?

As everyone here has stated:

Our government is, what, $14 trillion dollars in debt, or so? Maybe not as good at managing money as some might hope.

Rationing care. Increased wait times. Current doctor shortage. Increased number of patients, increased work hours, decreased physician control on treatment regimens, red tape and superfluous guidelines to certain medications.

And for Neocon: Increased taxes.

There are many others. Try pages 1-current, to name a few more.

On a positive note: An increase in number of patients will result in more money in the medical system, and Canada has some pretty nice salaries, so... not really a bad thing for personal finances.

I have to go put on the white coat (short one kpt... still the short one) and go play doctor. If you wish to discuss this after hours, I will be back.

 

[therealUT]

Gibbs, if you want the US Federal Government to spend more money on health care in order to increase individual health, then you should be advocating that the government pump all that money into developing this technology to the point in which it is inexpensive enough to have in every household in America:

Notre Dame researchers developing hand held diagnostic device that can detect DNA of bacteria and viruses | iMedicalApps