Is Univeral Health Care the answer?????

[Martha]

I have this nearly irresistible urge to lock this thread.

Must . . not. . . touch. . .

 

[haha]

Discretion struck.

Ha

 

[OKLibrarian]

Sorry, I came off sounding kind of picky--your points were important. I brought up variability in eligibility just to show it is even more restrictive than your experience in many places. I would have left the social work field too; the rules and restrictions would have disabled me.

no offense taken--probably should have tossed a smiley in there. I mainly took the job because the local economy crashed in 2002 and it was the easiest way to get a steady paycheck, do something that actually helped my fellow man, and figure out what i wanted to be when i grew up. And you've encapsulated exactly why i left the field--I was powerless to do anything other than enforce policies that I found alternately idiotic and harmful. And daily exposure to black, white, hispanic, asian, etc. people who were mired in generational poverty and/or were actively destroying themselves was turning me into a person I didn't particularly like. I did it for as long as i could, did it as well as I could--and then I finished grad school and went to my current job. No regrets for going to work there, and even less for leaving.

 

[Brat]

What I don't get is the fact that many do not realize that the poor health of some costs all of us big bucks over the long term. Health care that is preventative in nature is a bargain, which is why I think that we should start with prenatal and child health care. Kids can't choose their parents.

The other focus should be on infectious diseases. One vector can cost us all a lot.

 

[brewer12345]

I must publicly complain to the moderator. This unacceptable on a forum, period. Other people seem to be able debate this issue without lowering to cursing at people. Inserting [usual edit] is unacceptable. If it such a common problem with this poster, then maybe a temporary suspension from the forum is needed. I know brewer is a valued poster and I have learned a lot in the finance section, but if he can't conduct himself as an adult maybe something more needs to happen.. IIRC this is the third time he used inppropriate language in this thread.

Hey, you got a problem, PM me. "Conduct yourself like an adult" and all that.

Sorry, but I find MKLD's nonsense far more offensive than even the most creative string of expletives I could possibly manage. Be happy I limited myself to two letters.

 

[lets-retire]

I'm not a mod so it is not my place to tell you to watch your language on a public forum. If it were an issue with me and you getting into a more heated argument than we've had in the past I would definitely PM you. I do not want anybody to think I go behind anyone's back and complain. In this situation, I believe a PM would result in nothing, the mods editing your posts did not clue you in. I want you to know exactly who complained.


Mods, I'm done with this thread.

 

[Martha]

Fair enough lets-retire.

Brewer, your posts had to be edited several times on this thread. Not acceptable. The rest of this conversation will take place privately.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Martha -

Here is a quote from an article from a Canadian Paper that says, in a nutshell, what I have been trying to get across in the "infant mortality" debate, but obviously, have not been able to articulate in a way that makes sense. Point being that we can't simply blame the difference in the two healthcare systems for the racial disparities in health outcomes. We have to look at other socio-economic factors.

Here is the link to the article if you want to read the whole thing, but I pulled this quote, because I think it better explains what I have been trying to say in a way that hopefully won't be offensive to anyone.

http://www.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/fasttrack/20050210/HPICARD10?section=Insurance

----------------

"Canadians cannot fool themselves into thinking that because we have a universal health system that access to care is equal.

There is ample evidence that it is not. Even though medically necessary care itself is "free," getting timely treatment for yourself and family members requires a certain level of education, the ability to get time off work, transportation and so on. Health facilities are better in wealthier neighbourhoods, and all sorts of treatments, such as prescription drugs, require out-of-pocket spending.

So, there is no reason to believe that the health outcomes of blacks in Canada are that dramatically different than those in the United States. (Though we don't know for sure because of an absence of research. In Canada, we are squeamish about exploring racial and cultural differences in health outcomes. While this colour-blindness is laudable, it is probably interfering with the need to address racial disparities in health care.)"

IMO - We have to take into consideration racial disparities in outcomes, because we here, in the USA have higher proportions of certain races than they do in Canada. I'm not saying this is a bad thing or even that it's the fault of the race for the predicaments that they may be in. I'm just trying to point out that having different proportions of these races could be what's skewing our numbers above that of Canada, and we have to take that into consideration. We can change the healthcare system all we want, but that's not going to change certain socio-economic factors such as education, ability to get transportation to the facilities, cultural values, behaviors driven by opression, rates of teen pregnancy, divorce rates, rates of smoking drug and alcohol abuse due to opression, etc., and these socio-economic factors would likely be similar regardless of which country the "opressed and discriminated" people lived in.

The article above points out that in Canada, they really don't track racial disparities in outcomes. That makes it really hard to compare the "infant mortality" debate on an apples to apples basis, and really hard to prove that it is ONLY the healthcare system that makes the difference.

 

[brewer12345]

Fair enough, lets. Frankly, I'm surprised your sensibilities were offended by two letters, but things are as we find them, I guess.

Last time I respond to a MKLD post or even acknowledge its existence. Prolly help keep me out of trouble.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

why are the rates for Black people so high and the rates for Hispanics so low?

Asked and answered. In the event you have trouble reading multisyllabic words, its because many hispanics do not write "hispanic" (or anything, or something invalid) on the birth certificate, many hispanic and african american populations in measured areas are statistically invalid, and because the measures changed during the analysis period. This data is not valid for the measure you are employing.

So short single syllables answer:

Your stuff not good.

but the fact remains that no matter where they lived, whether in Canada or the USA, they'd probably have similar infant mortality rates.

There is absolutely no data to support this statement.

I'm gonna get the troll stick out pretty soon.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Cute and fuzzy,

Would you mind commenting on the Canadian Article that I posted earlier today? I am curious to your thoughts on that. Canadians don't track racial disparities in health outcomes, but some in Canada believe that regardless of the health system, Blacks may not have any better outcomes there than in the USA due to discrimination and opression.

In Canada, the opressed, aside from a more "fair" healthcare system, still have trouble with levels of education, ability to travel to facilities, ability to afford out of pocket expenses such as prescriptions that aren't covered under Canada's national system, and other risk factors that are outside of the control of the healthcare system.

Since we really do have higher numbers of Blacks in America than in Canada, the effects of racial oppression could be what is skewing our infant mortality rates higher than Canada - Aside from the healthcare system. Comments?

 

[kcowan]

As a longtime resident of Canada, I am unhappy with the costs of our universal system. I strongly believe that some kind of accountability is needed for the costs used in the system. Too many people rush to the doctor or the hospital for a cold or an earache. There is not even any awareness regarding what a visit costs. Being totally isolated from the costs of service is a bad idea.

Unlike prescriptions where we see the dispensing fees and the much higher prices for brand names and their direct impact on our bank accounts. And dentists. We have also not come up with an acceptable solution. The govenments have tried to ration non-life-threatening services to get costs under control. This is what gives our system a bad reputation.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Canadians don't track racial disparities in health outcomes, but some in Canada believe that regardless of the health system, Blacks may not have any better outcomes there than in the USA due to discrimination and opression.

Ah, finally some concrete data. :

I'm failing to understand what your point is. Is it that black people will die at higher rates no matter where they live and regardless of their health care options? Is it that putting blacks and hispanics in charge of our currently ridiculous health care system will make it work as well as universal healthcare? Is it that excluding anyone of color from being helped by a universal system the way to go?

I can say with some authority however that when SG and I agree with something, that usually means the subject of the matter is probably fighting a losing battle with bad data.

I'm ready to tag out, anyone else wanna tag in or have we sufficiently renamed the dead horse, formed a committee to discuss the dead horse, and reorganized the department to address the dead horse?

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Ah, finally some concrete data. :

I'm failing to understand what your point is. Is it that black people will die at higher rates no matter where they live and regardless of their health care options? Is it that putting blacks and hispanics in charge of our currently ridiculous health care system will make it work as well as universal healthcare? Is it that excluding anyone of color from being helped by a universal system the way to go?

I can say with some authority however that when SG and I agree with something, that usually means the subject of the matter is probably fighting a losing battle with bad data.

I'm ready to tag out, anyone else wanna tag in or have we sufficiently renamed the dead horse, formed a committee to discuss the dead horse, and reorganized the department to address the dead horse?

I can see that your not getting my point, even though I have said it over and over again. The point is, WE HAVE A LOT MORE BLACKS (who, as a race, happen to have extrememly high infant mortality statistics) IN AMERICA THAN THEY DO IN CANADA. THEREFORE, I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE EFFECTS OF OPPRESSION (NOT THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM) ARE WHAT IS SKEWING OUR INFANT MORTALITY NUMBERS HIGHER THAN CANADA.

THEREFORE, CHANGING OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM TO A NATIONALIZED SYSTEM, IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO MAKE OUR INFANT MORTALITY STATISTICS SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER. TO REALLY FIX THE PROBLEM, YOU HAVE TO GET AT THE ROOT CAUSES OF RACIAL DISPARITY, WHICH WE ALL KNOW IS NOT SOMETHING CAN BE FIXED OVERNIGHT, LET ALONE IN CENTURIES.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Okay, thats plausible.

The only problem is that there is absolutely no data to support any of it, other than the one flakey data report that says that blacks have a higher infant mortality rate.

There is no data to say that the cause is race related, oppression related, healthcare related or why the problem exists.

Therefore, there is no data that says that implementing a nationalized system wont improve the "problem". In fact, it seems that its more likely that it'll improve the problem a lot.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Okay, thats plausible.

The only problem is that there is absolutely no data to support any of it, other than the one flakey data report that says that blacks have a higher infant mortality rate.

There is no data to say that the cause is race related, oppression related, healthcare related or why the problem exists.

Therefore, there is no data that says that implementing a nationalized system wont improve the "problem". In fact, it seems that its more likely that it'll improve the problem a lot.

You are right about the data issue. Canada is skwemish about reporting statistics related to racial disparity. If Canada tracked racial disparity on health outcomes, it would be easier to say, with 100% certainty that it is the healthcare system that is the issue, because then we could compare apples to apples.

I, unlike you, think that factors such as level of education, cultural and behavioral differences, teenage pregnancy rates, divorce rates, drugs, smoking and alcohol abuse, and crime have a lot more to do with infant mortality than the kind of healthcare system we have. These are all things that aren't necessarily going to change just because we change our healthcare system. Changing the system might help a little, but I just don't think people should use the infant mortality rate comparison as proof that our healthcare system needs to be nationalized.

 

[Gotadimple]

Therefore, there is no data that says that implementing a nationalized system wont improve the "problem". In fact, it seems that its more likely that it'll improve the problem a lot.

Hmmm. . . I'm not so sure one can connect more access to healthcare to improved health outcomes for the population when you get down to specifics around a specific population type. The federal government has been trying to do that for a decade with the Childrens Health Insurance Program. It still hasn't improved infant mortality rates, or improved health in children. Why? Parents aren't willing -- or are unable -- to get their children in to the doctor.

Why is that? Reimbursement rates to the physician for one. Fear by the physician that their patients who can pay for services won't want to occupy the same waiting room as lower paying patients, as a second issue. Concern by the parent that they have to give up wages in order to get the child to the doctor. Concern by some parents that they will be scooped up by the Immigration office (means they are illegal aliens).

So 'data' to support an outcome is flawed and will always be flawed. We're dealing with a concept here that suggests according to the scientific method that when we're done we should have accomplished more and better. But, science and art - which is called medicine, can't always overcome health outcomes.

--Rita

 

[Freein05]

Back to the topic and forget Canada. In a few years if health care cost continue to go up at 2 to 4 times the inflation rate no one will be able to afford health care, and employers would have dropped health care insurance because of the costs.

Than there will be a mini revolution by the people and we will get universal health care.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Back to the topic and forget Canada. In a few years if health care cost continue to go up at 2 to 4 times the inflation rate no one will be able to afford health care, and employers would have dropped health care insurance because of the costs.

Than there will be a mini revolution by the people and we will get universal health care.

You are probably right about that. And shortly after that happens (maybe 2 or three years), we will all be paying WAY more in taxes, IMO, than we would have in today's system, for our health insurance premiums plus the taxes we pay today. This is because, IMO, it is not profit motive that causes high premiums, it is the cost of care (which isn't going to be that much lower if we nationalize.) Sure you can site that admin costs and profit motive will be removed from the equasion, but demand will rise incredibly, totally offsetting any admin savings.

 

[Nords]

I can see that your not getting my point, even though I have said it over and over again. The point is, WE HAVE A LOT MORE BLACKS (who, as a race, happen to have extrememly high infant mortality statistics) IN AMERICA THAN THEY DO IN CANADA. THEREFORE, I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE EFFECTS OF OPPRESSION (NOT THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM) ARE WHAT IS SKEWING OUR INFANT MORTALITY NUMBERS HIGHER THAN CANADA.
THEREFORE, CHANGING OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM TO A NATIONALIZED SYSTEM, IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO MAKE OUR INFANT MORTALITY STATISTICS SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER. TO REALLY FIX THE PROBLEM, YOU HAVE TO GET AT THE ROOT CAUSES OF RACIAL DISPARITY, WHICH WE ALL KNOW IS NOT SOMETHING CAN BE FIXED OVERNIGHT, LET ALONE IN CENTURIES.

MKLD, speaking as a moderator and as Dr. Phil says, "How's that workin' for ya?" Do you feel that this approach is improving the coherency of your debate and the strength of your position? Are you shouting in all caps because CFB can't comprehend your vocabulary? Or should you start typing slower because he can't read fast enough?

Or is this another helpful approach similar to advising doctors how to navigate the healthcare system and use medical transcriptionists, or lawyers to get more educated on how the system works?

We banned H0cus because, among other things, his posts were repetitive to the point of obsession and refusing to acknowledge the validity or even the feasibility of other's opinions & experiences. I believe that you are also reaching that point.

You are right about the data issue. Canada is skwemish about reporting statistics related to racial disparity. If Canada tracked racial disparity on health outcomes, it would be easier to say, with 100% certainty that it is the healthcare system that is the issue, because then we could compare apples to apples.
I, unlike you, think that factors such as level of education, cultural and behavioral differences, teenage pregnancy rates, divorce rates, drugs, smoking and alcohol abuse, and crime have a lot more to do with infant mortality than the kind of healthcare system we have. These are all things that aren't necessarily going to change just because we change our healthcare system. Changing the system might help a little, but I just don't think people should use the infant mortality rate comparison as proof that our healthcare system needs to be nationalized.

I think you need to appreciate that your first paragraph says there is, at best, insufficient data to support your conclusions. That does not, however, seem to prevent your second paragraph from stating those conclusions. If CFB & SG can't make you appreciate the logical inconsistency of your "approach" then I'm not going to waste further time on it either.

But your approach needs to change. I've always liked Roy Weitz' moderator policy over at FundAlarm: "Please note: This is a moderated discussion board. Commercial, off-topic, repetitive, or offensive postings will be ruthlessly deleted." Dory uses a more "reasonable person" approach, and once again it's clear that if you have to ask what that means then you're not being reasonable.

In my opinion you're trying to progressively push each of us moderators into a corner where we may feel uncomfortable moderating your posts for fear of accusations of being less than objective. But this has gone far enough. We support democracy and the first amendment, but that doesn't require us to practice it to the point of abdicating to anarchy. I think we're well within our "reasonable person" criteria to ask you to drop the subject and move on. The fact that you continue to persist long past the point of new information or more informed reasoning, let alone an appreciation for other viewpoints, makes me suspect that you're trolling. The fact that you continue to engage posters in this manner:

Cute and fuzzy,
Would you mind commenting on the Canadian Article that I posted earlier today? I am curious to your thoughts on that. Canadians don't track racial disparities in health outcomes, but some in Canada believe that regardless of the health system, Blacks may not have any better outcomes there than in the USA due to discrimination and opression.
In Canada, the opressed, aside from a more "fair" healthcare system, still have trouble with levels of education, ability to travel to facilities, ability to afford out of pocket expenses such as prescriptions that aren't covered under Canada's national system, and other risk factors that are outside of the control of the healthcare system.
Since we really do have higher numbers of Blacks in America than in Canada, the effects of racial oppression could be what is skewing our infant mortality rates higher than Canada - Aside from the healthcare system. Comments?

... pretty much confirms my suspicion that you're more interested in raising a ruckus than you are in leading a discussion. The fact that you've incited other posters into public arguments and sowed plenty of dissension, let alone forced the moderators to spend a inordinate amount of time on your posts, convinces me that you're more interested in trolling than you are in a dialogue or a resolution.

So move on from this thread. You've spoken your opinions here and you're done. Find something else to talk about, let alone unrelated to healthcare, or find another board to engage in your disruptive behavior.

If you can't (or won't) do that then the moderators are standing by to assist.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I, unlike you, think that factors such as level of education, cultural and behavioral differences, teenage pregnancy rates, divorce rates, drugs, smoking and alcohol abuse, and crime have a lot more to do with infant mortality than the kind of healthcare system we have.

I never said, nor did I imply that. In fact I agree. I just think that better access to healthcare by everyone would be helpful to everyone. No matter what color they are. In the end, bad living will kill you, doctor or no doctor. Black, white, green, or safety orange.

Hmmm. . . I'm not so sure one can connect more access to healthcare to improved health outcomes for the population when you get down to specifics around a specific population type.

I didnt suggest that either. In fact, I think what I was saying is that good available healthcare should help anyone. See above.

The two things i've been digging at here are that broad statements made using oblong hunks of not particularly accurate and not terribly applicable data combined with an opinion dont create facts, and that I dont think people are more likely to have their babies die whether or not they have better medical care and advice because of their skin color.

Something I *can* point out, with significant data, is that the primary costs associated with health care have a lot more to do with paperwork, overhead, and other related bullpuckey.

Which isnt to say that involving the government will help that. But frankly I cant see it hurting much.

Its a regular event here at the Bunny household to get a test done or a doctor visit where the doctor sends paperwork to blue cross, blue cross denies the claim because they feel the codes used were in error, sends the paperwork back to the doctor, who notes that the codes are correct but that blue cross didnt see the exception information where they had prior approval, that gets sent back to blue cross, who carefully analyzes the situation, pays all but six bucks of it, sends that back to the doctor, who then bills me for the six bucks, which I pay by check or credit card, both of which require processing time and money.

All of this for a $50-100 item.

I guess its time for a football analogy. When your starting QB is throwing more to the opposing cornerbacks than to his own receivers, you yank the bum and put your second stringer in.

Some days the second stringer doesnt do that great either. Some times he turns into Tom Brady.

The starter we have now sucks. He's sucked for a long time. Its time for the second stringer.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

I never said, nor did I imply that. In fact I agree. I just think that better access to healthcare by everyone would be helpful to everyone. No matter what color they are. In the end, bad living will kill you, doctor or no doctor. Black, white, green, or safety orange.

Cute and Fuzzy - I really regret bringing up the race issue and from the beginning should have just said that we can't use infant mortality rates as proof of a failed health care system BECAUSE we have to take into consideration the socioeconomic issues affecting larger numbers of people in America than in Canada (as mentioned above) that would be unchanged by nationlizing the system. I think generally, we agree on the problems, and we are both very concerned about them, but we just disagree on how to fix them. I wouldn't be so passionate in my persistence if I didn't care so much about the well-being of our country.

I do apologize for offending anyone on this board - it wasn't my intention - I realize I need to be more careful about the words I use in trying to get to my point across. Foot in Mouth - very sorry.

I never said that better access to care wouldn't help the mortality numbers, either. It's just that we can't prove, one way or the other, whether infant mortality rates are a direct result of our healthcare system or more related to socio-economic factors. There are simply too many other factors to think about, so we need to stop using the infant mortality rates as evidence of a failed healthcare system.

The system's not perfect. I have said that many times. I have even made some suggestions regarding thoughts on how to make it better.

Almost all of the posters on this subject missed my point, and it's probably my own fault because of my apparent lack of ability to articulate myself. Again - sorry.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

On that note, I am taking it upon myself as moderator of this forum to put this topic out of its misery. I think it has more than run its course. I don't do this lightly, but it is time for closure here.

Anyone feeling the need to rediscuss it is welcome to start a new topic, hopefully one just a bit more noble.

Rich