Cancer v. the Constitution

24

Replies

  • Justins DadJustins Dad Posts: 3,247 Officer
    In a free market society, isn't the correct response to this situation to improved people's ability to pay for medical care? Isn't a socialistic-type response to say let's make the Gov pay for it or saying "let's make people dependent on Gov to pay for it". Should we not be moving towards free market solutions?
    gunby31 wrote: »
    We have super medical care if you can afford it.
  • Justins DadJustins Dad Posts: 3,247 Officer
    Compared to other countries, I'd be interested in seeing stats of US children born prematurely, with life threatening disease, addicted to drugs. There's a chance that the US has far more incidence of life threatening infantile births than other countries.
    The Truth About Health Care and Infant Mortality

    Lack of access to health care does not explain America's infant mortality rate

    Steve Chapman | August 24, 2009






    The American medical system has the latest technology, the greatest variety of new drugs, and unparalleled resources. But anyone who thinks we're getting something great for our dollars inevitably encounters a two-word rebuke: infant mortality.

    The United States is the richest nation on Earth, but it comes in 29th in the world in survival rates among babies. This mediocre ranking is supposed to make an irrefutable case for health care reform. If we cared enough to insure everyone, we are told, we would soon rise to the health standards of other modern nations. It's just a matter of getting over our weird resistance to a bigger government role in medical care.

    But not every health issue is a health care issue. The reason boxers are unusually prone to concussions is not that they lack medical insurance. Doctors may treat head injuries, but it's a lot easier to prevent them. Absent prevention, we shouldn't blame the medical industry for punch-drunk fighters.

    Like life expectancy (the subject of a previous column), infant mortality is a function of many factors. The more you look at the problem, the less it seems to be correctable by a big new federal role in medical insurance—and, in fact, the less it seems to be mainly a medical issue at all.

    No one denies the problem. Our infant mortality rate is double that of Japan or Sweden. But we live different lives, on average, than people in those places. We suffer more obesity (about 10 times as much as the Japanese), and we have more births to teenagers (seven times more than the Swedes). Nearly 40 percent of American babies are born to unwed mothers.

    Factors like these are linked to low birth weight in babies, which is a dangerous thing. In a 2007 study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, economists June O'Neill and Dave O'Neill noted that "a multitude of behaviors unrelated to the health care system such as substance abuse, smoking and obesity" are connected "to the low birth weight and preterm births that underlie the infant death syndrome."

    Nicholas Eberstadt, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, also attributes the gap largely to conduct. Comparing white Americans to Norwegians in his 1995 book, The Tyranny of Numbers, Eberstadt concluded that "white America's higher rates of infant mortality are explained not by poverty (as conventionally construed) or by medical care but rather by the habits, actions, and indeed lifestyles of a critical portion of its parents." Whites are not unique in those types of behavior.

    African-American babies are far more likely to die than white ones, which is often taken as evidence that poverty and lack of health insurance are to blame. That's entirely plausible until you notice another racial/ethnic gap: Hispanics of Mexican or Central or South American ancestry not only do consistently better than blacks on infant mortality, they do better than whites. Social disadvantage doesn't explain very much.

    Nor does access to prenatal care, as the health care critique implies. It used to be assumed that if you assured that pregnant low-income women could see a physician, their infants would do much better. Not necessarily.

    When New York expanded access to prenatal care under Medicaid, the effort reduced the rate of low birth weight infants by just 1 percent. In Tennessee, after a similar effort, researchers found "no concomitant improvements in use of early prenatal care, birth weight or neonatal mortality."

    So why does our infant mortality rate exceed that of, say, Canada, where health care is free at the point of service? One reason is that we have a lot more tiny newborns. But underweight babies don't fare worse here than in Canada—quite the contrary.

    The NBER paper points out that among the smallest infants, survival rates are better on this side of the border. What that suggests is that if we lived under the Canadian health care system, we would not have a lower rate of infant mortality. We would have a higher one. A lot of things could be done to keep babies from dying in this country. But the health care "reform" being pushed in Washington is not one of them.


    http://reason.com/archives/2009/08/24/the-truth-about-health-care-an
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    Compared to other countries, I'd be interested in seeing stats of US children born prematurely, with life threatening disease, addicted to drugs. There's a chance that the US has far more incidence of life threatening infantile births than other countries.

    Here is the link for rankings by life expectancy:

    http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/cancer-v-the-constitution/


    ranking by preventable deaths

    http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html


    Infant mortality rates

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


    As I have said before, the USA is not even in the top 10 EXPECT when it comes to cost for healthcare, then we are NUMBER ONE.
    Chubasco.jpg
  • fins4mefins4me Posts: 14,437 AG
    How does being a Christian relate to this?

    It doesn't ,,, just all the :trolls have.
    ALLISON XB 21,, MERCURY 300 Opti Max Pro Series (Slightly Modified) You can't catch me!!!
    "Today is MINE"
  • heathenheathen Posts: 7,080 Officer
    If a dozens deaths due to cancer are what it takes to preserve individual freedom and liberty that is a small price to pay. I would suggest you tell the 500,000 vets who died to preserve out liberty that their early demise was any less tragic.

    so they died to protect your "right" to let people who could be helped die. got it.
  • heathenheathen Posts: 7,080 Officer
    How does being a Christian relate to this?

    oh, i dunno. could be the things your fairy tale says. you know, the one you claim to follow?

    http://www.openbible.info/topics/helping_those_in_need
  • Justins DadJustins Dad Posts: 3,247 Officer
    Heathen, you can't be serious!
  • Justins DadJustins Dad Posts: 3,247 Officer
    chubby, i'm interested in US infants born with life-threatening conditions compared with other countries, not how many die after birth. I suspect that because of better and earlier access to US quality healthcare, babies that would normally die in utero (spontaneous miscarriage) are actually born and then later die. If true, this paints an artificially high infant mortality rate.

    Statistics are interesting things and should always be taken with the grain of salt.
    chubasco wrote: »
    Here is the link for rankings by life expectancy:

    http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/cancer-v-the-constitution/


    ranking by preventable deaths

    http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html


    Infant mortality rates

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


    As I have said before, the USA is not even in the top 10 EXPECT when it comes to cost for healthcare, then we are NUMBER ONE.
  • kayakjoekayakjoe Posts: 812 Officer
    heathen wrote: »
    oh, i dunno. could be the things your fairy tale says. you know, the one you claim to follow?

    http://www.openbible.info/topics/helping_those_in_need

    i am not a biblical scholar but I would venture to guess that the bible means that you should voluntarily show goodness and charity toward your neighbor through your own free will, through the concern and goodness of your own heart.
    you are really stretching to imply that taxation under the threat of force and coercion via a government entity to redistribute tax dollars is what the bible refers to. Why is it that those who seem to not believe the words of the Bible will generally mock ridicule and discredit it yet they,like you just did, refer to it to try to prove someone wrong. if you dont believe it fine but you lose credibility when you use it to denigrate someone else
    Always strive to never let your irresponsibility become someone else's responsibility
    once we worry more about our obligations and responsbilities and less about our rights and privileges the better things will be

    search?q=ron+paul&view=detail&id=84496DDE8E08910A94413612B2779B745F2B8E58&first=0&FORM=IDFRIR
  • CoolchangeCoolchange Posts: 377 Officer
    I've got some travel planned for this summer. I found it very interesting to see what our own government (department of State) had to say about medical care in Italy....a single payer system.

    "MEDICAL FACILITIES AND HEALTH INFORMATION: Medical facilities are available, but may be limited outside urban areas. Public hospitals, though generally free of charge for emergency services, sometimes do not maintain the same standards as hospitals in the United States, so you are encouraged to obtain insurance that would cover a stay in a private Italian hospital or clinic. It is almost impossible to obtain an itemized hospital bill from public hospitals, as required by many U.S. insurance companies, because the Italian National Health Service charges one inclusive rate (care services, room and board)."

    Is this really the direction we want to take?
  • rain dograin dog Posts: 3,245 Captain
    so your point is: if you live in canada you get free cancer treatment? obama care will allow free cancer treatment in the united states? i already lost my mom to cancer so i know all about people dying from cancer .. in the end you get an endless supply of morpine and that is provided by hospice.
  • heathenheathen Posts: 7,080 Officer
    Heathen, you can't be serious!

    sure, your bibble says those things. are you shocked? even your christ says "...go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

    so why do you still not wish to help the poor? i'm curious as to how you can claim to be "christian" yet dodge some of your christ's directives.
  • heathenheathen Posts: 7,080 Officer
    kayakjoe wrote: »
    i am not a biblical scholar but I would venture to guess that the bible means that you should voluntarily show goodness and charity toward your neighbor through your own free will, through the concern and goodness of your own heart.
    you are really stretching to imply that taxation under the threat of force and coercion via a government entity to redistribute tax dollars is what the bible refers to. Why is it that those who seem to not believe the words of the Bible will generally mock ridicule and discredit it yet they,like you just did, refer to it to try to prove someone wrong. if you dont believe it fine but you lose credibility when you use it to denigrate someone else

    :rotflmao
    you are straining seriously to read between the lines and failing miserably. again.

    you should go back and read the thread. perhaps you will then grasp where you fell off the track. :)
  • PacoPaco Posts: 702 Officer
    I'll propose a change. Let's call it ObamaChoice. Expand the current VA system to include anyone who CHOOSES this system over the current 3rd party system. Give people the choice. Let the free market exist side by side with a modified socialized system.


    This is EXACTLY what Obama originally wanted to do but the repubs went crazy. Looks like you and I agree on something.
    "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”

    - John Stuart Mill
  • CoolchangeCoolchange Posts: 377 Officer
    I'm thinking government run local clinics and regional health centers. You go to med school on a scholarship, you do 2 years. You go to med school and default on your student loan, you do two years. You receive care, you work at a center. 10 hours for every hour of care received. Trade big pharm tax free income for full support of these clinics. Will the care suck? Sure it will, but this is a last ditch stop gap for those that are either unable to purchase insurance, or too irresponsible to do so. I'm sure there are plenty of care givers incarcerated, here's another staffing source. These should not be places someone would want to go, but better than receiving no care at all.
  • Justins DadJustins Dad Posts: 3,247 Officer
    Again, you can't be serious? Why do you think *I* don't want to help the poor.
    heathen wrote: »
    sure, your bibble says those things. are you shocked? even your christ says "...go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”

    so why do you still not wish to help the poor? i'm curious as to how you can claim to be "christian" yet dodge some of your christ's directives.
  • Justins DadJustins Dad Posts: 3,247 Officer
    Source?
    Paco wrote: »
    This is EXACTLY what Obama originally wanted to do but the repubs went crazy. Looks like you and I agree on something.
  • arbitrageurarbitrageur Posts: 371 Officer
    bswiv wrote: »
    Fact is that both sides, and those of us in the middle, see and agree with the need for a alteration of how the system works but you've painted it such that to reject your solution is to chose to do nothing.

    Nonsense. The Republican Party has played prevent defense on any healthcare reform since the 1970s. The idea that members of the Republican establishment "see and agree with the need for a alteration of how the system works" is absurd and demonstrably false.
    Source?
    You need a source for recent historical fact??? How about Google. The position you are arguing for would be PREFERRED by the far left, which has no love for Obamacare.

    The irony is that Obamacare is likely the most conservative form of health reform we are going to get in this country. It was modeled on Nixon's 1974 plan, uses a mandate designed by the Heritage Foundation in 1989, funnels millions of new customers to private-sector, for-profit insurance carriers, and is a mirror of Romney's MA scheme.

    If Obamacare is vacated and Obama is reelected, those who find the law abhorrent will be pining for it when they see what comes next. The left is already rumbling about "Medicare for all."

    Then, all the fear mongering, conflation, and false arguments about "Socilaized medicine" and "rationing" and "government run healthcare" that are not true about Obamacare will actually become factual!!!
    Qui audet adipiscitur
  • gregglgreggl Posts: 21,594 Officer
    Do you not think people in Canada die while waiting to access over-taxed services?

    Yes.. I think they do.

    That is why we need to study what EVERYONE else is doing, then apply American entrepreneurial 'know-how' and craft a system that makes the rest of the planet sit-up, and take notice that we're still the exceptional best.
  • BudaBuda Posts: 2,062 Captain
    I am disgusted with the continuous endless debate as regards providing such a basic right as equal health care to all. Who cares about free speech or freedom of the press when you are dying for lack of health care or have to beg for it. Our society has certainly progressed since we enacted our Constitution. Well, we amended it to take care of a good many inequities, such as right to vote for women and others due to previous condition of servitude. Time for a Constitutional amendment that provides and protects equal health care for all as a basic right to be provided and protected.

    Oh yeah, it costs too much. Well, we better start figuring out how to get the cost down or pay for it the way it is. I will say start with taxing all Americans at the same rates regardless of gimmicks such as the capital gains tax and preferences of all kinds that can not be equally utilized by all, to be determined by everyone having the same effective and maximum tax rate on income or every kind. Have a tax table that is applicable to everyone no exceptions, no exemptions, no accountants required.

    BudA
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    Buda wrote: »
    I am disgusted with the continuous endless debate as regards providing such a basic right as equal health care to all. Who cares about free speech or freedom of the press when you are dying for lack of health care or have to beg for it. Our society has certainly progressed since we enacted our Constitution. Well, we amended it to take care of a good many inequities, such as right to vote for women and others due to previous condition of servitude. Time for a Constitutional amendment that provides and protects equal health care for all as a basic right to be provided and protected.

    Oh yeah, it costs too much. Well, we better start figuring out how to get the cost down or pay for it the way it is. I will say start with taxing all Americans at the same rates regardless of gimmicks such as the capital gains tax and preferences of all kinds that can not be equally utilized by all, to be determined by everyone having the same effective and maximum tax rate on income or every kind. Have a tax table that is applicable to everyone no exceptions, no exemptions, no accountants required.

    BudA


    :thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup
    Chubasco.jpg
  • The BusinessThe Business Posts: 154 Deckhand
    Buda wrote: »
    I am disgusted with the continuous endless debate as regards providing such a basic right as equal health care to all. Who cares about free speech or freedom of the press when you are dying for lack of health care or have to beg for it. Our society has certainly progressed since we enacted our Constitution. Well, we amended it to take care of a good many inequities, such as right to vote for women and others due to previous condition of servitude. Time for a Constitutional amendment that provides and protects equal health care for all as a basic right to be provided and protected.

    Oh yeah, it costs too much. Well, we better start figuring out how to get the cost down or pay for it the way it is. I will say start with taxing all Americans at the same rates regardless of gimmicks such as the capital gains tax and preferences of all kinds that can not be equally utilized by all, to be determined by everyone having the same effective and maximum tax rate on income or every kind. Have a tax table that is applicable to everyone no exceptions, no exemptions, no accountants required.

    BudA

    49% of Americans aren't paying any Federal Income Tax. Are you saying we should goto a fair or flat tax?
  • BudaBuda Posts: 2,062 Captain
    49% of Americans aren't paying any Federal Income Tax. Are you saying we should goto a fair or flat tax?

    I'm saying we have a tax rate table for all income without the reductions allowed to arrive at taxable income. The table applies to everyone. Now, I am not in favor of taxing anyone that that doesn't meet some basic subsistance level. What ever that is, if you do not meet that level, you do not pay any tax. Over that level we have a graduated rate such as we have now that applies to everyone.

    A flat tax for everyone lacks compassion that to me is necessary in advanced prosperous society such as ours.

    BudA.
  • Justins DadJustins Dad Posts: 3,247 Officer
    Why do you feel that equal access to healthcare is a basic human right? And exactly what level of healthcare should all people be given access to? Should all people wanting heart replacement be given equal access, regardless of their age, co-morbities, past medical history, genetic factors, etc? Should anyone be able to get anything they want, simply because they want it? Because, that is about the only way to ensure equality and even then it wont' be equal because there won't be enough money to pay for it all .

    The reality is that "equal access" is myth. It doesn't exist now and it won't exist under Obamacare. Access to limited resources must be controlled. Today, it's by ability to pay. Under Obama it will be by availability of services. Which is best is up to the individual but neither ensure equal access. At least in today's market, people are still given access, even if they can't pay. There are many charities and write offs assisting to help ensure access. Under a Gov run system, there will be NO CHOICE because ALL the control lies with the Gov. Today, people can mortgage their homes for catastrophic health needs. Is this what I want to do if my wife was suddenly stricken with cancer? Obviously, no but I want the CHOICE to decide. In a Gov run system if she needed treatment but some Gov agency said no, there would be NO CHOICE!! If you are comfortable placing ALL healthcare decisions in the hands of a gov worker, be my guest. Personally, I would rather pay an extra tax to improve access to our current system rather than have a Gov takeover.
    Buda wrote: »
    I am disgusted with the continuous endless debate as regards providing such a basic right as equal health care to all. Who cares about free speech or freedom of the press when you are dying for lack of health care or have to beg for it. Our society has certainly progressed since we enacted our Constitution. Well, we amended it to take care of a good many inequities, such as right to vote for women and others due to previous condition of servitude. Time for a Constitutional amendment that provides and protects equal health care for all as a basic right to be provided and protected.

    Oh yeah, it costs too much. Well, we better start figuring out how to get the cost down or pay for it the way it is. I will say start with taxing all Americans at the same rates regardless of gimmicks such as the capital gains tax and preferences of all kinds that can not be equally utilized by all, to be determined by everyone having the same effective and maximum tax rate on income or every kind. Have a tax table that is applicable to everyone no exceptions, no exemptions, no accountants required.

    BudA
  • gregglgreggl Posts: 21,594 Officer
    The reality is that "equal access" is myth. It doesn't exist now and it won't exist under Obamacare. Access to limited resources must be controlled.

    So you advocate 'death panels'? Someone has to decide, right?

    I'm all for them, btw.
  • ben17ben17 Posts: 2,782 Officer
    Why do you feel that equal access to healthcare is a basic human right? And exactly what level of healthcare should all people be given access to? Should all people wanting heart replacement be given equal access, regardless of their age, co-morbities, past medical history, genetic factors, etc? Should anyone be able to get anything they want, simply because they want it? Because, that is about the only way to ensure equality and even then it wont' be equal because there won't be enough money to pay for it all .

    The reality is that "equal access" is myth. It doesn't exist now and it won't exist under Obamacare. Access to limited resources must be controlled. Today, it's by ability to pay. Under Obama it will be by availability of services. Which is best is up to the individual but neither ensure equal access. At least in today's market, people are still given access, even if they can't pay. There are many charities and write offs assisting to help ensure access. Under a Gov run system, there will be NO CHOICE because ALL the control lies with the Gov. Today, people can mortgage their homes for catastrophic health needs. Is this what I want to do if my wife was suddenly stricken with cancer? Obviously, no but I want the CHOICE to decide. In a Gov run system if she needed treatment but some Gov agency said no, there would be NO CHOICE!! If you are comfortable placing ALL healthcare decisions in the hands of a gov worker, be my guest. Personally, I would rather pay an extra tax to improve access to our current system rather than have a Gov takeover.

    Who is proposing this "Gov takeover" you keep ranting about ?
  • camojoecamojoe Posts: 1,104 Officer
    ben17 wrote: »
    Who is proposing this "Gov takeover" you keep ranting about ?

    Effective September 23, 2010
    Insurers are prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays, in new policies issued.

    Dependents (children) will be permitted to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday, and regulations implemented under the Act include dependents that no longer live with their parents, are not a dependent on a parent's tax return, are no longer a student, or are married.

    Insurers are prohibited from excluding pre-existing medical conditions (except in grandfathered individual health insurance plans) for children under the age of 19.

    Insurers are prohibited from charging co-payments, co-insurance, or deductibles for Level A or Level B preventive care and medical screenings on all new insurance plans.

    Insurers' abilities to enforce annual spending caps will be restricted, and completely prohibited by 2014.

    Insurers are prohibited from dropping policyholders when they get sick.

    Insurers are required to reveal details about administrative and executive expenditures.

    Insurers are required to implement an appeals process for coverage determination and claims on all new plans.

    Effective January 1, 2011

    Insurers must spend a certain percent of premium dollars on eligible expenses, subject to various waivers and exemptions; if an insurer fails to meet this requirement, there is no penalty, but a rebate must be issued to the policy holder.

    Flexible spending accounts, Health reimbursement accounts and health savings accounts cannot be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs, purchased without a prescription, except insulin.
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

    Groucho Marx
  • ben17ben17 Posts: 2,782 Officer
    camojoe wrote: »
    Effective September 23, 2010
    Insurers are prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays, in new policies issued.

    Dependents (children) will be permitted to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday, and regulations implemented under the Act include dependents that no longer live with their parents, are not a dependent on a parent's tax return, are no longer a student, or are married.

    Insurers are prohibited from excluding pre-existing medical conditions (except in grandfathered individual health insurance plans) for children under the age of 19.

    Insurers are prohibited from charging co-payments, co-insurance, or deductibles for Level A or Level B preventive care and medical screenings on all new insurance plans.

    Insurers' abilities to enforce annual spending caps will be restricted, and completely prohibited by 2014.

    Insurers are prohibited from dropping policyholders when they get sick.

    Insurers are required to reveal details about administrative and executive expenditures.

    Insurers are required to implement an appeals process for coverage determination and claims on all new plans.

    Effective January 1, 2011

    Insurers must spend a certain percent of premium dollars on eligible expenses, subject to various waivers and exemptions; if an insurer fails to meet this requirement, there is no penalty, but a rebate must be issued to the policy holder.

    Flexible spending accounts, Health reimbursement accounts and health savings accounts cannot be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs, purchased without a prescription, except insulin.


    Are you telling me there have never been any restrictions on what insurance companies could do prior to 2010.
  • Justins DadJustins Dad Posts: 3,247 Officer
    Ben, when an organization controls pricing and access (i.e. Obamacare), what do you call it?
    ben17 wrote: »
    Who is proposing this "Gov takeover" you keep ranting about ?
Sign In or Register to comment.