Is Univeral Health Care the answer?????

[Martha]

Your current president has cut funding for Medicaid to the point where it is a joke. It is nothing like Medicare. Medicaid is run by the states and how bad or how very bad it is depends on how much the state can or is willing to make up for the cut in funding our compassionate president has cut!

A good example is Mississippi. Infant mortality increased dramatically in the last three years, right after huge medicaid cuts.

 

[haha]

Cuts in funding always end up happening eventually in "socialized" systems of care. It was inevitable. It's the beginning of rationing. After the cuts happening, that's when we start ending up with shortages of care, etc...It would be the same, eventually, if we went national with the entire system.

First, you tax the people to death to pay for it. When you can't tax anymore, then you start cutting funding (cost control). When you can't do that anymore, you start ending up with shortages of care. That's the natural progression of a socialized system.

Do not not see that we are already here in our "non socialist" system?

Ha

 

[mykidslovedogs]

For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the infant mortality rate for babies born to women living in households with incomes below the poverty line is 60% higher than for babies of nonpoor women. CDC concluded that poverty raises infant morality rates as much as smoking during pregnancy or inadequate prenatal care.

The CDC also said:

"One possible explanation for this is that mortality rates for infants born to high-risk women are already so high -- even among those living above poverty level -- that poverty has little additional effect."

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Do not not see that we are already here in our "non socialist" system?

Ha

Actually, the USA is already more than half socialized when you take into consideration that sligthly more than 1/2 or our spending comes from Medicare and Medicaid recipients.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Yes you can.

I don't know where to start or where to stop, but I thought I should suggest that people look at the CDC if they want some figures on mortality and poverty.

For example, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the infant mortality rate for babies born to women living in households with incomes below the poverty line is 60% higher than for babies of nonpoor women. CDC concluded that poverty raises infant morality rates as much as smoking during pregnancy or inadequate prenatal care.

Also, study after study has established a correlation between low income and adult mortality.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8616393

Than why are the mortality rates of the Hispanic population soooo much lower than in the Black population? You can't simply blame just poverty and access to care or the numbers between Blacks and Hispanics wouldn't be so significantly different. I think poverty is one factor, but obviously, it's not everything....and rates of poverty would probably be similar whether the other races lived in Canada or in the USA.

The problem that everyone has when they assume that lack of access to care is the only reason for our higher rates is that no one is taking into consideration that higher risk groups of people (such as people of certain races, people who smoke, drink, take drugs or have teen pregnancies) may be skewing our numbers above Canada's too.

The CDC said:

"planning efforts for maternal and child health programs should include consideration of low income, in addition to other social and behavioral characteristics, such as adolescent childbearing, cigarette smoking during pregnancy, access to prenatal care, low maternal educational attainment, and race/ethnicity."

IMO, The "other social and behavioral characteristics" would be a constant, regardless of where the poeple live. That's why we can't just blame our health care system for the higher statistic here than in Canada.

 

[Martha]

MKLD quote was a bit out of context. In full:


The findings in this analysis of NMIHS indicate that, for infants born to women living in poverty in the United States in 1988, overall excess mortality risk was approximately 60% compared with infants born to women living above the poverty level. Although higher proportions of women living below poverty level than above were in high-risk groups (i.e., unmarried, adolescent, smokers, black, or had had late or no prenatal care), the higher risk for death among infants born to women living below the poverty level was not associated with these maternal characteristics. Instead, the effect of poverty was stronger for infants born to women who were otherwise at low absolute risk for infant mortality (i.e., women who were married, aged greater than or equal to 18 years, nonsmokers, white, had had early prenatal care, or with greater than or equal to 12 years of education). One possible explanation for this is that mortality rates for infants born to high-risk women are already so high -- even among those living above poverty level -- that poverty has little additional effect.

 

[farmerEd]

So according to MKLD infant mortality is not a good guage of the health care system, and life expectancy is also not a good guage of the health care system...

I guess MKLD's only guage of a successful healthcare system is the ability of insurance company exec's to make millions by denying claims of sick folks and whore/brokers skimming a few cents off of every health care dollar...now THAT's a good metric for a healthcare system....

 

[Nords]

Reason something like that hasn't been implemented yet? To answer Nords...is because too many people don't like the idea of "unfairness".

Gosh, I sure am glad we have someone like you around, MKLD. You can explain anything in terms of your understanding of what people like or don't like, instead of whether something is actually feasible. It certainly avoids messy debates that would actually have to be based in anything concrete like facts.

But speaking of "facts", you also seem to be an expert on correlation & causality. Did you happen to be paying attention to SG when he said that race & infant mortality aren't necessarily connected? Is your "fact" any more useful than the fact that S&P500 market returns are closely correlated to Bangladesh butter production? Ah, but stock-market analysts probably don't "like" something as unfair as having to manage butter production.

Actually your set of facts is much more subject to abuse than even Bangladesh. Because it's an important point that race has nothing to do with whether your kid lives or dies, but unfortunately many are tempted to wrap racist "facts" like that around a cost-cutting or otherwise racially-profiled policy that can make problems worse-- not better. People are tempted to do something about race instead of about data quality or pre-natal care or neonatal intensive care or anything else that might actually have a causality with an infant's chance of survival.

I'd like to think that blissfully-ignorant bigotry is a vanishing artifact of the 20th century. But I see it in relatives (whom I used to respect) as much as I see it in strangers, so I guess the fact that someone is bigoted has little or nothing to do with their accomplishments. Or their race. Or their occupation. Or their membership on this board.

But I don't have to tolerate it. It's been interesting talking to you, and you have a nice life now.

Andy, how's that "Ignore" feature coming?

 

[haha]

I guess MKLD's only guage of a successful healthcare system is the ability of insurance company exec's to make millions by denying claims of sick folks and whore/brokers skimming a few cents off of every health care dollar...

Naughty Naughty!

Ha

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Again, I don't understand how someone can be a bigot just because they think that race/ethnicity and behaviors such as smoking, drinking, lack of education and getting pregnant during the teen years might have more to do with the difference in the infant mortality numbers than just the healthcare system alone.

Based on the numbers given earlier, this is a logical conclusion to draw. It has nothing to do with whether or not I like or dislike people of any particular race. In fact, I have quite a few black and hispanic friends. The information I am providing is simply evidence that you can't simply just blame our healthcare system for the difference in the numbers. You've got to look at other factors. Blaming the healthcare system alone is too simplistic of a conclusion to draw.

 

[eridanus]

In fact, I have quite a few black and hispanic friends.

Uh oh.

:

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Uh oh.

:

Y'all need to get over your sensitivity. I'm just presenting facts that point to a possibility that the healthcare system alone may not be the only reason for the difference in infant mortality rates.

 

[sgeeeee]

Y'all need to get over your sensitivity. I'm just presenting facts that point to a possibility that the healthcare system alone may not be the only reason for the difference in infant mortality rates.

No. You are not. I don't question the data (at least my questions of the data are not the important point here). In order to reach your conclusions, you have to assume that the statistical observation is causal (ie that being of a particular race is the underlying cause for the infant mortality observation). Without proving causality, your argument is not logical. You are simply wrong. And since this is so obvious to everyone but you, I believe I am done here. You are either too stupid or too stubborn to understand.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

No. You are not. I don't question the data (at least my questions of the data are not the important point here). In order to reach your conclusions, you have to assume that the statistical observation is causal (ie that being of a particular race is the underlying cause for the infant mortality observation). Without proving causality, your argument is not logical. You are simply wrong. And since this is so obvious to everyone but you, I believe I am done here. You are either too stupid or too stubborn to understand.

As you are wrong to assume that the healthcare system is the only cause.

In earlier arguments I pointed out that Blacks have very high rates, while Hispanics have quite low rates. If race has absolutely nothing to do with the huge difference in infant mortality rates between the black and hispanic races, then what might some of the other reasons be? Blacks and Hispanics are similarly discriminated against, have similar rates of poverty and similar problems accessing the healthcare system, so why are the rates for Black people so high and the rates for Hispanics so low?

Are you saying that there is absolutely no possibility that race (or that the behaviors, cultural values attitudes, and education levels of particualr races) might be a factor?

 

[haha]

Are you saying that there is absolutely no possibility that race (or that the behaviors, cultural values attitudes, and education levels of particualr races) might be a factor?

Are you a recent arrival from Mars? Don't you recognize blasphemy when you write it?

HA

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Are you a recent arrival from Mars? Don't you recognize blasphemy when you write it?

HA

I guess not. Maybe you could elaborate. I'm just pointing out my observations based on data that I have looked into. If you take offense to my observations, there's not much I can do about that.

 

[OKLibrarian]

This is somewhat state dependant. States don't have to provide any benefits to you if you are over 18 and not disabled, even if you have no money at all. EDIT to add: States divide low income people into three groups: children, parents of children, and non-parent adults. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 40 of 50 states non-parent adults are not eligible for Medicaid at all, even if they do not have a penny to their name, unless they are fully and completely disabled. The remaining 10 states provide some coverage but it is very limited.

Valid point. Those are just the rules i knew in my state when i was still doing the caseworker thing (about 3 years ago now--man time flies!). However it sounds like they're fairly representative or even slightly more generous than the average. My general point stands.

 

[brewer12345]

Are you saying that there is absolutely no possibility that race (or that the behaviors, cultural values attitudes, and education levels of particualr races) might be a factor?

No, I think people are generally just a tad irritated thet you seem to believe that the healthcare system is hunky-dory and that any and all problems are due to the stupidity/laziness/behaviors of old people/doctors/cancer patients/people with a skin tone darker than copy paper.

** [usual edit], lady!

 

[Martha]

As you are wrong to assume that the healthcare system is the only cause.

In earlier arguments I pointed out that Blacks have very high rates, while Hispanics have quite low rates. If race has absolutely nothing to do with the huge difference in infant mortality rates between the black and hispanic races, then what might some of the other reasons be? Blacks and Hispanics are similarly discriminated against, have similar rates of poverty and similar problems accessing the healthcare system, so why are the rates for Black people so high and the rates for Hispanics so low?

Are you saying that there is absolutely no possibility that race (or that the behaviors, cultural values attitudes, and education levels of particualr races) might be a factor?

MKs, many of us here feel like we are butting our heads against the wall. There are many interesting correlations regarding mortality, both infant and adult, as well as poor health, with socioeconomic status, such as wealth, education, what job you have, as well as race, what state you are from, and many other factors, all jumbled up together and nearly impossible to sort through. But as people here have said over and over again, correlation is not cause and effect. For example, children of smokers are more likely to have asthma than children of non-smokers. Poor people are in fact more likely to smoke than wealthy people. Is childhood asthma the result of the smoking or something else having to do with being poor? Heck, maybe it is mold in the home. Or what they eat. Or all of the above. Or none of the above.

Another example. People without a high school education are less healthy than the more educated. Is it because they have no motivation to improve or take care of themselves? Is it because they have less money so they don't eat well and don't go to the doctor when they should? Or is it because people with health problems are less likely to finish school? Hey, I bet there is a correlation between poor mental health and completion of high school. You do have to be very careful when trying to figure out cause and effect.

It would be nice to know why certain groups have more health problems or why certain groups are healthier. That would be helpful in figuring out how to address the problems. But we can't get that far here and the reasons for disparities among groups are complex.

What is problematic about your posts is that you are not carefull about cause and effect and you jump to conclusions that are offensive. You say: "If we moved all of the blacks and hispanics from the USA to Canada, Canada's infant mortality rates would be higher" assuming that being black alone will automatically result in a higher mortality rate without considering that maybe it is a much larger systematic problem. You leave broad hints that it is the fault of black people that they have poor health, after all they have certain "behaviors, cultural values attitudes, and education levels."

Brewer has a point.

Think before you type.

 

[sgeeeee]

Oh, what the heck. I'll give it one more try.

As you are wrong to assume that the healthcare system is the only cause.

The problem with this statement is that I have never assumed any such thing. Nothing I have said depends on any such thing. This is the third time (in this thread alone) that you have refuted an argument I never made and that is irrelevant to the discussion. You seem to be a very confused thinker who can't focus on logical developments. I don't know how to help you other than to encourage you to read more carefully and ask questions if you become confused.

In earlier arguments I pointed out that Blacks have very high rates, while Hispanics have quite low rates. If race has absolutely nothing to do with the huge difference in infant mortality rates between the black and hispanic races, then what might some of the other reasons be?

Ahhhh. . . that is the point so many have tried to make already. Go back and re-read the other posts carefully. Several posters cite several other contributing factors that may cause the numbers to occur as they do.

But you should know that it doesn't matter whether the factors that they mention contribute to the final result or not. Even if every factor they mention turns out to have no impact at all, your argument is still invalid. You are still wrong. The only way to get to your conclusion logically is to prove that race causes infant mortality. Without that proof, an infinite number of explanations might be offered to explain the statistical observation you speak of.

Blacks and Hispanics are similarly discriminated against, have similar rates of poverty and similar problems accessing the healthcare system, so why are the rates for Black people so high and the rates for Hispanics so low?

See above. But why do you think that's true? Do you think skin color causes infants to die? I can't imagine what your explanation is and would love to hear it.

Are you saying that there is absolutely no possibility that race (or that the behaviors, cultural values attitudes, and education levels of particualr races) might be a factor?

No. I am simply saying that you have not presented a logical argument. You are wrong. And you are either too stupid or too stubborn to see what everyone is telling you. . .

So which is it? ? ? Too stupid? or too stubborn?

 

[Martha]

Valid point. Those are just the rules i knew in my state when i was still doing the caseworker thing (about 3 years ago now--man time flies!). However it sounds like they're fairly representative or even slightly more generous than the average. My general point stands.

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.

 

[lets-retire]

** [usual edit], lady!

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.

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Dowling, Mike, "Mr. Dowling's Interactive Table of the Nations of the World," available from http://www.mrdowling.com/800nations.html; Internet; updated Thursday, June 29, 2006 . ©2007, Mike Dowling. All rights reserved.

http://www.mrdowling.com/800life.html

United States Life Expectancy: 77.85 years
Canada Life Expectancy: 80.22 years

United States Infant Mortality: 6.4
Canada Infant Mortality: 4.7

Note the date of last update is June 2006.

Sgeeee, was that not a post you made earlier? What conclusion was I supposed to draw from that? The post makes it seem that you are trying to prove that life expectancy rates and infant mortality rates have a cause and effect relationship with healthcare systems based on the stats presented.

I said...
Blacks and Hispanics are similarly discriminated against, have similar rates of poverty and similar problems accessing the healthcare system, so why are the rates for Black people so high and the rates for Hispanics so low?


And you said: See above. But why do you think that's true? Do you think skin color causes infants to die? I can't imagine what your explanation is and would love to hear it.


My answer is: I doubt "skin color" causes a race to have higher infant mortality rates. However, when you have a rate like 13.8/1000 for Blacks and 5.8/1000 for Hispanics, it kind of makes you wonder why Blacks have such a statistically significant higher number of deaths per thousand than Hispanics. Especially since both groups face many of the same socio-economic problems. Therefore, the conclusion is that the race (not skin color) may have something to do with it. I don't know if it is cultural differences or what, but the fact remains that no matter where they lived, whether in Canada or the USA, they'd probably have similar infant mortality rates.


Martha - You are right and I will try to be more careful about the way I say things. I tried to correct myself regarding the Hispanic figures, but after my first comment, no one could see the point I was trying to make. ....that you can't just assume that it is the healthcare system alone that leads to the difference in infant mortality rates between Canada and the USA. That's the main and only point I was trying to make in all of this. You have to consider other socio-economic factors that would remain constant whether the high-risk groups lived in Canada or not.

 

[teejayevans]

Hundreds of appends later, no concensus, guess this is exactly what
happens in congress

Next I suggest we take up gun control and abortion

TJ

 

[sgeeeee]

Hundreds of appends later, no concensus, guess this is exactly what
happens in congress

Next I suggest we take up gun control and abortion

TJ

Actually, there is a very clear consensus. One stubborn and/or stupid nut job doesn't imply a lack of consensus. It implies one stubborn and/or stupid nut job.