Insurance and Healthcare

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: tengers Lost me, I didn't say anything about girls etc...

Correct. I did in the post of mine you duplicated and responded to.

[Morality Games]

Still not seeing it?...... The answer to the question grasshopper, is YES.

Oh. Well, anyway, that doesn't make the statistics I offered or their conclusions wrong. It just means Medicare people aren't necessarily among the millions. But for what it is worth, Medicare recipients have their own share of problems.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Obviously you are not capeable of comprehending the differences between deaths from cancer and survival rates. Perhaps there is a recipe forum or something to keep you busy. For Five year Cancer survival rates for all cancers, the US ranks #1 Political Calculations: A Closer Look at Cancer Survival Rates The U.S. has a five-year survival rate in all the cancers studied of 91.9 per cent, while Europe's is much lower at 57.1 per cent. CTV.ca | Canada gets high ranking for cancer survival rates

Obviously, you seem to not understand that if you are somewhere in the magnitude of 3 times more likely to get cancer, it matters in the end game. What the US is good at is treating some the most deadly forms of cancer. What the US is good at is not really so much beating those deadly forms of cancer, but in prolonging the battle beyond 5 years.

You talk a good game. You are very adept at throwing lots of mud in the water. But you do not make the same demands of perfection in your own analysis as you demand in others.

Most of us here are not stupid. We know that correlation does not equal causation. But we also know and accept that the first step in establishing causation is correlation. It's like establishing the opportunity for commission of a crime. Though it is true that if the suspect was in the same city in which the murder took place, it does not prove his guilt, being in a different city, days from the scene of the crime sure does establish innocence. It is a positive link, correlation, and necessary to establish anything scientifically. You can also be sure that any peer reviewed study is going to start seriously examining the variables that, when studied and eliminated or correlated themselves,are further links in the chain of evidence for causation. So tossing out variations of "correlation is not causation" and "appeal to authority" does not, in and of itself, disprove anything. And demanding absolute proof of 100% causation ignores a plain and simple fact...that is an impossible standard. One can never establish a 100% perfect "control group" and your silly insistence on demanding we ignore all evidence of the lack of effectiveness of our health system unless and until we can get a "control" that meets your "standard" is nothing more than a tactic to avoid a painful truth. That truth is that our system is far from being as effective as is possible. The proof is in the pudding. Others do, in fact, achieve better outcomes for less money. Isolating cancer does not disprove this, demanding unreasonable control correlation does not disprove this. It prolongs debate, muddies the water and makes you feel like you have won on "style" points, but it does not alter fundamental facts.

I hope that now I can be done with this useless debate with you. I must admit, I find it difficult to not respond to some of your more inane points.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Obviously, you seem to not understand that if you are somewhere in the magnitude of 3 times more likely to get cancer,

I made no assertions about how likely one is to get cancer. Survival rates are a measure of survival of those who get cancer. Now quit trying to dance off to some other baseless claim. You said I lied now why dont you step up to the plate and back up your Bull sheet for once. Show me ANYTHING that contradicts my assertion regarding survival rates.

[dan4reason]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 I made no assertions about how likely one is to get cancer. Survival rates are a measure of survival of those who get cancer. Now quit trying to dance off to some other baseless claim. You said I lied now why dont you step up to the plate and back up your Bull sheet for once. Show me ANYTHING that contradicts my assertion regarding survival rates.

Survival rates are almost totally dependent on the level of healthcare people receive. Seeing there is such a wide gap between us and Europe, I think that this issue should be looked into.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 I made no assertions about how likely one is to get cancer. Survival rates are a measure of survival of those who get cancer. Now quit trying to dance off to some other baseless claim. You said I lied now why dont you step up to the plate and back up your Bull sheet for once. Show me ANYTHING that contradicts my assertion regarding survival rates.

Right, you made no assertion about that because it is evidence that contradicts your rosey, US insurance bliss scenario. And isn't it quite annoying to be called a liar based on some set of claims that really don't have much to do with the claim you ARE making? I guess you missed the ironic intent and the direct quoting of you from a similar circumstance. But even in attempting to leave the "rational reservation", I did show you SOMETHING that contradicted your assertion. I am doing this from memory, so forgive me if it isn't word for word correct, but, you claimed the US has higher survival rates for "most all forms of cancer". When you search on the subject, you find that most google hits involve a Lancet Oncology study that reference on 4 specific cancers, not "most all forms", and even in that study, we were 50/50. We were better in 5+ years survival rates in 2 forms of cancers of the four referenced. This is not being better in even "most all" of the very limited number of cancers studied, much less in "most all forms" of cancer. And when one reads the articles that go along with the "US Wins!" type headlines, you find multiple caveats (one article I read said that it was our success with prostate cancer that made the big statistical difference) and this is SOMETHING that contradicts your point.

And please, it isn't really funny or clever to tell people they are full of "sheet".

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: Morality Games Oh. Well, anyway, that doesn't make the statistics I offered or their conclusions wrong.

Just as when barts claims we are worst among the 33 developed countries, when what he really means is worst among 14 of the OECD high income countries, it makes a difference. Your claims about all people when what you mean is the people under 65, it makes a difference. It renders your statistics about the "people" wrong. And we havent even addressed your concusion that anyone without insurance can even "approach healthcare" when in fact thousands of the insured approach healthcare everyday and consume. Both paying for it out of their own pocket and private or public funding.
.

[dan4reason]

I think that this debate needs more factual sources.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Just as when barts claims we are worst among the 33 developed countries, when what he really means is worst among 14 of the OECD high income countries, it makes a difference. Your claims about all people when what you mean is the people under 65, it makes a difference. It renders your statistics about the "people" wrong. And we havent even addressed your concusion that anyone without insurance can even "approach healthcare" when in fact thousands of the insured approach healthcare everyday and consume. Both paying for it out of their own pocket and private or public funding. .

I work in a doctors office. I know what percentage of people I see walk away from treatment because they can't afford the out of pocket expense. People who can't afford the 75.00 dollars every two weeks I pay for insurance sure as shit can't afford the 500.00 to 800.00 dollars on the spot to treat the small wrist bone they fractured. So, they walk away. People with medicaid can get treatment for a recent fracture, but our office (and all other offices in the area I am aware of) will not treat an old fracture that has not healed properly, torn ligaments, a torn RC, OA, bursitis, plantar faceitis, meniscus tears or any other thing that orthos treat. Just an acute fracture suffered in the last two weeks. That is it. An emergency room won't treat it either, they splint, X-ray and street. Your fantasy of competent medical care for those on Medicaid is just that, fantasy. Just as it is fantasy to assume that most who don't purchase insurance can and do willingly pay for treatment "out of pocket". The only people I see who whip out the checkbook and pay for treatment are self-employed small business people who don't carry health plans for their business, but make plenty of money for themselves.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Right, you made no assertion about that because it is evidence that contradicts your rosey, US insurance bliss scenario.

Healthcare has not yet advanced to where it can prevent cancers, einstein. Healthcare has little to nothing to do with cancer rates. Feel free to present ANYTHING published that says otherwise. And while your at it, when are you going to get around to backing up your assertion that my claims regarding cancer survival rates were a lie?

Quote by: lsbskins1 And isn't it quite annoying to be called a liar based on some set of claims that really don't have much to do with the claim you ARE making? I guess you missed the ironic intent and the direct quoting of you from a similar circumstance.

Im not sure how they are similiar because your claim of 60% satisfaction was Bull sheet, proven to be so with your data source and now admitted by you. My claim regarding survival rates has so far been shown to be completely accurate.

Quote by: lsbskins1 I am doing this from memory,

BULL SHEET ALERT!

Quote by: lsbskins1 so forgive me if it isn't word for word correct, but, you claimed the US has higher survival rates for "most all forms of cancer". When you search on the subject, you find that most google hits involve a Lancet Oncology study that reference on 4 specific cancers, not "most all forms",

My source rated the US with the highest survival rates taking into account ALL forms of cancer. Not sure what you are going on about some Lancet study.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Healthcare has not yet advanced to where it can prevent cancers, einstein. Healthcare has little to nothing to do with cancer rates. Feel free to present ANYTHING published that says otherwise. And while your at it, when are you going to get around to backing up your assertion that my claims regarding cancer survival rates were a lie? Im not sure how they are similiar because your claim of 60% satisfaction was Bull sheet, proven to be so with your data source and now admitted by you. My claim regarding survival rates has so far been shown to be completely accurate. BULL SHEET ALERT! My source rated the US with the highest survival rates taking into account ALL forms of cancer. Not sure what you are going on about some Lancet study.

Right, 5+ years survival rates, not cures. The US is good at prolonging life from deadly cancers, no doubt about it. We get LOTS of practice because our cancer rates are much higher than anyone else. And to claim that cancer rates are not a "health care issue" boggles my mind. Since prevention education is a health care issue it would seem that fact alone moves "cancer rates" into the arena. But really, that is the point of comparing US rates to rates in other developed nations, so that you get groups to compare that have as similar a base of enviromental influences as possible. What carcinogens are more present in the US than in other nations of similar economic means? If those areas aren't that diverse, then you are back to dietary differences, smoking rate differences and the like, all of which are health care issues. So, cancer rates are, more than likely, a function of health care policies to a very large extent. If you have some set of facts that contradict this hypothesis, I am all ears. But simply claiming that cancer rates are not a "health care issue" does not make it so.

And, again, all this focus on cancer is simply a way to take attention away from the larger issue. If I said your mom was not a very good cook, and rather than talking about all the things she makes that taste bad, you choose to focus everyone's attention on how good she is at making peanut butter cookies, it does not make her a good cook. It doesn't make her chicken good, her pot roast good, her cole slaw good, her green beans good, her corn bread good, her rack of lamb good, her apple pie good...you get the picture.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: lsbskins1 ight, you made no assertion about that because it is evidence that contradicts your rosey, US insurance bliss scenario. And isn't it quite annoying to be called a liar based on some set of claims that really don't have much to do with the claim you ARE making? I guess you missed the ironic intent and the direct quoting of you from a similar circumstance. But even in attempting to leave the "rational reservation", I did show you SOMETHING that contradicted your assertion. I am doing this from memory, so forgive me if it isn't word for word correct, but, you claimed the US has higher survival rates for "most all forms of cancer". When you search on the subject, you find that most google hits involve a Lancet Oncology study that reference on 4 specific cancers, not "most all forms", and even in that study, we were 50/50. We were better in 5+ years survival rates in 2 forms of cancers of the four referenced. This is not being better in even "most all" of the very limited number of cancers studied, much less in "most all forms" of cancer.

"4 specific cancers"?

U.S. survival rates are higher than the average in Europe for 13 of 16 types of cancer reported in Lancet Oncology , confirming the results of previous studies. Of cancers that affect primarily men, the survival rate among Americans for bladder cancer is 15 percentage points higher than the European average; for prostate cancer, it is 28 percentage points higher. Of cancers that affect women only, the survival rate among Americans for uterine cancer is about 5 percentage points higher than the European average; for breast cancer, it is 14 percentage points higher. The United States has survival rates of 90 percent or higher for five cancers (skin melanoma, breast, prostate, thyroid and testicular), but there is only one cancer for which the European survival rate reaches 90 percent (testicular). Furthermore, the Lancet Oncology study found that lung cancer patients in the United States have the best chance of surviving five years — about 16 percent — whereas patients in Great Britain have only an 8 percent chance, which is lower than the European average of 11 percent. U.S. Cancer Care Is Number One - Brief Analysis #596

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: lsbskins1 We get LOTS of practice because our cancer rates are much higher than anyone else.

I would pull data from YOUR source to show what complete and unadulterated bull sheet that claim is but we all know there wouldnt be any point among the ideologically blind.

Quote by: lsbskins1 And to claim that cancer rates are not a "health care issue" boggles my mind. .

Pointless straw man. I said healthcare doesnt prevent cancer at this point in our scientific developement. They can only treat it.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 I would pull data from YOUR source to show what complete and unadulterated bull sheet that claim is but we all know there wouldnt be any point among the ideologically blind.

Death from cancer by country. Definition, graph and map.

This is how you make me crazy. Yes, I said much higher than anyone else. Rather than accepting that our cancer rates are high, you choose to focus on what is true in large measure but not literally and exactly true. We do have much higher rates of cancer than the UK, Finland, Sweden, Austria, and France. Demanding exactitude rather than addressing the point at hand is a "throw crap at the wall and see what sticks" defense.

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Pointless straw man. I said healthcare doesnt prevent cancer at this point in our scientific developement. They can only treat it.

But health care education can prevent many forms of cancer. People do not avoid what they do not know to be dangerous to their health. It may be true that once you get cancer, they can only treat it, but if more education is built into the system, health care is capable of prevention. Since smoking was positively linked to lung cancer, and public education (largely through the Surgeon General's Office, a health care institution) has increased on the dangers, smoking rates in the US have gone down, preventing perhaps thousands or hundreds of thousands of smoking related cancer deaths. That is health care prevention of cancer, by any reasonable definition.

And here we are again, looking at how good your mom's peanut butter cookies are. What about all the food she makes that sucks?

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Death from cancer by country. Definition, graph and map. This is how you make me crazy. Yes, I said much higher than anyone else. Rather than accepting that our cancer rates are high, you choose to focus on what is true in large measure but not literally and exactly true.

Perhaps darlin if you would take a gander at your own source you would see that of the 16 countries you listed, 8 had worse cancer rates and only 7 had better, your claim is demonstably false in any measure. And we havent even yet addressed the other 183 countries of the world that would even further show your claim to be completely false.

And when are you going to get around to providing ANY evidence to support your assertion that my claim regarding cancer survival rates is a "lie"

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Perhaps darlin if you would take a gander at your own source you would see that of the 16 countries you listed, 8 had worse cancer rates and only 7 had better, your claim is demonstably false in any measure. And we havent even yet addressed the other 183 countries of the world that would even further show your claim to be completely false.

The claim is not completely false. The US has high cancer rates. It does not have the "highest" cancer rates, It does not have the "lowest". You and this obsession with exactness in terminology are very depressing. It does not add to the debate, it distracts from the issues at hand.

The US does not preform well when compared with nations of similar economic strength in the area of death rates per 100,000 for cancer. It preforms well when comparing cancer survival rates beyond five years, but no one does as well as they would like for cancer cures, that is, getting people to survive a deadly cancer and die later from some cause other than that cancer.

This is one aspect of the larger health care debate. It is an aspect you have focused down on because it is the "good peanut butter cookies", and not the lousy pot roast/corn bread/cole slaw/green beans/apple pie/rack of lamb issue that further degrades your position. Your mother makes better peanut butter cookies than some, but not better than all. If it will get you to focus on what matters (that being her lousy cooking skills otherwise) you might even entice me to proclaim that they are "fabulous!, hon! fabulous!". It would be a tactical retreat for the purpose of pursuing the larger battle, but if your ego needs that "style point win", what the hell.

How bout we talk about something other than those cookies now?

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: lsbskins1 And, again, all this focus on cancer is simply a way to take attention away from the larger issue. .

Yeah, thats why youve spent a day now trying to refute my simple statement

Quote by: barnhardt2010 The US has a higher survival rates for most all forms of cancer.

with your bull sheet claim

Quote by: lsbskins1 Why must you lie? This "constant steam of hyperbole and misrepresentation" from you is disturbing.... We do not have the highest rate of survival for "most all forms of cancer".

that you are still trying to defend, and still refusing to substantiate. And we havent even addressed your insertion of the straw man alleging that I EVER claimed we had the "highest" survival rate.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Yeah, thats why youve spent a day now trying to refute my simple statement with your bull sheet claim that you are still trying to defend, and still refusing to substantiate. And we havent even addressed your insertion of the straw man alleging that I EVER claimed we had the "highest" survival rate.

ibid

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: lsbskins1 The claim is not completely false. The US has high cancer rates.

Since your statistics show that our cancer rate is lower than the average of the countries listed, it is completely false. Revealing to watch you so vehemently defend it.
When are you going to get around to showing that my claims about cancer SURVIVAL rates was a "lie"?

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: lsbskins1 ibid

Im the one arguing that cancer survival rates for the country are more relevant than barts anecdotal stories of individuals with cancer. You are the one simultaneously arguing that my claim was a lie, and irrelevant to a discussion of health care quality.