Insurance and Healthcare

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 uuuuuuhhhh? they collect taxes, and out of those taxes, they pay for expenditures. Now please show me that this three day ordeal on how government pays for expenditures wasnt a pointless exercise

It got you to finally answer after 3 days. Seems like that's your fault when you could have answered the first person to ask you that question.

So, what if the current taxes don't cover it. Now what, increase taxes?

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Most deaths from cancer are a slow painful process of sickness that gets progressively worse. Even the uninsured are compelled to show up at the emergency room or low cost clinic and get their diagnosis of cancer. Barts asserts as fact that more go undiscovered in the US than countries with public healthcare, though he is yet to provide any evidence. Since 18% of the cancer diagnosis in the study were among the uninsured, and 18% of the general population under 65 are uninsured, the only evidence we have so far points to no more of the uninsured die from undiagnosed cancer than the insured and since barts source states that

Again you are wrong. Many forms of cancer are aggressive and spread and kill fast. Many Cancers can be treated before they actually cause death... unless they go undiagnosed/untreated too long.

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Yeeeesss. They then are included among those who are diagnosed with cancer and included in the calculation of survival rate. You havent yet even grasped the subject of this three day debate on cancer survival rates

I'm not speaking on the calculation of survival rates. But thanks fro trying.

Well, we already have "the most aggressive tumor screening in the world" but sure, we could probably do even more screening and insted of just having the highest cancer survival rate in the freakin world, we could have the highest cancer survival rate in the freakin world by 10 freakin miles. Now tie that fact into the debate as to what we should do about our healthcare. Will 10 freakin miles be enough or do we need to go for 20?

You seem to be saying, that " having the highest cancer survival rate in the freakin world" is good enough... not for the people dieing from cancer.

[tengers]

[QUOTE=barnhardt2010;638036]Ive done that repeatedly. My argument is



Barts disagrees

Perhaps, this is another way to look at this.I just looked at the Nationmaster data that was posted. The world average mortality rate for cancer had an average of about 330/100,000. Some nations were in the 400's and some as low as 250. The US was about 320/100,000. That figure is remarkably close to the world average. Perhaps that is so because we are such a mix of the world's population.

The National Cancer Institute graph of survival rates which seemed to have a lot of commentary about how it was calculated over a long period of time, including such things as holes in follow up with patients and improvements in treatment over time, seemed to show a 5 yr rate of about 55%. That aside, it would seem that the bottom line is that after all is said and done, we have a mortality rate for cancer that is about average for the world (320 vs 330), with the world's highest cost 15% of GNP vs world average of 8%).

So if our death rate is about average for the world, and our cost is the highest, it would not seem anything to write home about, or that couldn't be improved upon.
　

　

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Zeebadee I don't want or need the government to get involved with my health care, I can manage my own affairs just fine without that.

So you'd rather have someone at a private insurance company, who is mandated to maintain company profits by denying healthcare, instead of a government employee who has no dog in the fight. How exactly do you manage your own healthcare and how would that be any different under a public system?

People need car insurance also, and affordable gasoline so they can get to their jobs (if they have one), shall we socialize those industries??

We already do, it's called corporate welfare. That's where we give taxpayer money to industries that are already making money.

How about electricity? Sewage treatment costs too much, shall we get government involved in that?

Ever hear of a public utility? *sigh* Please try thinking before speaking.

Phone service is pretty much a requirement these days, we're already providing free cell phones for many people, shall we make that a national effort as well? Internet access is becoming essential, what with the decline of the print media.

Phone service isn't a "necessity for survival" like clean drinking water or heat in the winter. But as you point out, there already are government programs on a national basis. These programs haven't put Verizon out of business.

I manage to handle all those things on my own, yet many people can't. Should I be taxed to provide services to others simply because they "need" them?? "I need this, and you have some, so you should give some to me", is that about it?

In a perfect world, yes, that would be it. Back to reality, who provides you with healthcare, which you manage on your own? How do you manage getting electricity to your home? How do you manage your sewage?

What incentive does anyone have to work if the producers in this country are going to be taxed to support the non-producers??

Aaahhhh, there it is... the same old repub mantra, the people who work have their money taken to support the lazy... Our taxes pay for a lot of things from the fire deptartment to unemplyment insurance. Do you have any figures on how much we spend on on the "non-porducers"? You should exclude those unable to work due to illness or disability. I can't wait to see those numbers so hurry up will ya!

If you, and others feel that providing health insurance is so important, why don't you unite and form your own voluntary fund to collectively support individual members of your group? Sort of like our current credit unions.

Here's a better idea. I'll take a tax increase to help fund public insurance and you can opt out of the tax increase and continue to fund the insurance company profits. I hope your coverage doesn't go up every year... oh wait, we already know it does... well I hope your insurance doesn't deny you treatment which causes you increased sickness or even death... wait, we already know it does...

Just keep your thieving hands out of my pockets.

I would LOVE a system where you get no services if you decide to opt out. How in the world will you get to the store to buy food when you can't use the road I pay for.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Ive done that repeatedly. My argument is Barts disagrees

Quote by: tengers Perhaps, this is another way to look at this.I just looked at the Nationmaster data that was posted. The world average mortality rate for cancer had an average of about 330/100,000. Some nations were in the 400's and some as low as 250. The US was about 320/100,000. That figure is remarkably close to the world average. Perhaps that is so because we are such a mix of the world's population.

Barts and I were discussing survival rates, not mortality. skins presented the nationmaster statistics to support her assertions.

Quote by: lsbskins1 you are somewhere in the magnitude of 3 times more likely to get cancer,.

Quote by: lsbskins1 our cancer rates are much higher than anyone else.

Perhaps even you can see that her characterizations above are not an accurate description of "close to the world average", perhaps not.

Quote by: tengers The National Cancer Institute graph of survival rates which seemed to have a lot of commentary about how it was calculated over a long period of time, including such things as holes in follow up with patients and improvements in treatment over time, seemed to show a 5 yr rate of about 55%. That aside, it would seem that the bottom line is that after all is said and done, we have a mortality rate for cancer that is about average for the world (320 vs 330), with the world's highest cost 15% of GNP vs world average of 8%).

The statistics are for 22 countries, not the world.

Quote by: tengers So if our death rate is about average for the world, and our cost is the highest, it would not seem anything to write home about, or that couldn't be improved upon.

No one is writing home. Barts is trying to support his assertion that we have the worst healthcare among developed nations, and that we do not have a high cancer survival rate. Skins that we have a higher cancer rate than anyone. We do not have the worst, we do have a high cancer survival rate and we do not have a higher cancer rate than anyone. These arent really judgement calls. They are facts.

[barts]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 No one is writing home. Barts is trying to support his assertion that we have the worst healthcare among developed nations, and that we do not have a high cancer survival rate.

A correction. I am asserting that the US has the worst health care / health insurance system among the developed nations. This is consistent with the topic under debate.

I am not asserting that the US does not have high five year survival rates for some cancers. I am asserting that the study you have offered to support that notion seems to suffer from deficiencies in methodology and sampling.

Please, be accurate when you assert my assertions.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo It got you to finally answer after 3 days. Seems like that's your fault when you could have answered the first person to ask you that question.

No, I answered 3 days ago. Just like they pay for any ordinary expenditure. Tax and spend.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo So you'd rather have someone at a private insurance company, who is mandated to maintain company profits by denying healthcare, instead of a government employee who has no dog in the fight. How exactly do you manage your own healthcare and how would that be any different under a public system?

My present insurance company provides excellent care at a reasonable price. I don't want or need, and certainly don't want to pay for, a public system.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo We already do, it's called corporate welfare. That's where we give taxpayer money to industries that are already making money.

So you get car insurance and gasoline simply through your taxes?? I guess I've been doing it wrong all this time.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Ever hear of a public utility? *sigh* Please try thinking before speaking.

*sigh*, ever hear of utility company investors?? I even had stock in PG&E at one time. Unless those investors aren't getting dividends, it's a for-profit industry. Please try thinking...........

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Phone service isn't a "necessity for survival" like clean drinking water or heat in the winter. But as you point out, there already are government programs on a national basis. These programs haven't put Verizon out of business.

Unless you know of a federally funded system, there is no such national service. In any case, it has nothing to do with Verizon or any other company. My point is that I would be paying for phone service for other people.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo In a perfect world, yes, that would be it. Back to reality, who provides you with healthcare, which you manage on your own? How do you manage getting electricity to your home? How do you manage your sewage?

Simple, I pay for it. I don't need the federal government to step in and run my life.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Aaahhhh, there it is... the same old repub mantra, the people who work have their money taken to support the lazy... Our taxes pay for a lot of things from the fire deptartment to unemplyment insurance. Do you have any figures on how much we spend on on the "non-porducers"? You should exclude those unable to work due to illness or disability. I can't wait to see those numbers so hurry up will ya!

I have no objections to reasonable taxes to support the things I need and want. I don't need figures to tell me that there are non-producers, the fact that we have welfare agencies is proof enough. I don't even mind a reasonable amount of my current taxes going to fund them.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo Here's a better idea. I'll take a tax increase to help fund public insurance and you can opt out of the tax increase and continue to fund the insurance company profits.

No one will be allowed to "opt out" of a socialized system. Unfortunately, I won't be able to afford to pay for both systems, so I'll be forced to drop the policy I am now very happy with and be required to use a system that will provide less and inferior care.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo I hope your coverage doesn't go up every year... oh wait, we already know it does... well I hope your insurance doesn't deny you treatment which causes you increased sickness or even death... wait, we already know it does...

My insurance company has never denied me any treatment, test, or drug that my doctor has deemed necessary.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo I would LOVE a system where you get no services if you decide to opt out. How in the world will you get to the store to buy food when you can't use the road I pay for.

I already pay taxes to support roads, trying to link health care costs to road taxes is ridiculous. You seem to think that forcing a socialized health care system on us isn't going to raise taxes.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: barts A correction. I am asserting that the US has the worst health care / health insurance system among the developed nations. This is consistent with the topic under debate. .

Oh geez! I think Ive stated "worst healthcare systems" enough time that it should have been clear by now. Ill try to avoid confusing you in the future with my brevity.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: barts I am not asserting that the US does not have high five year survival rates for some cancers. .

Ohhh geez

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

Quote by: barts As you demand of others, if you're going to make assertions of fact like "The US has a higher survival rates for most all forms of cancer" you'll need to produce credible sources. In the absence of any support for your assertions, it is only reasonable to proceed with the default position that your assertion is wrong.

[barts]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Oh geez! I think Ive stated "worst healthcare systems" enough time that it should have been clear by now. Ill try to avoid confusing you in the future with my brevity.

I would not be concerned about precision if I was confident you actually understood the points I am, in fact, making because it seems you're responding to points you think I'm making.

On the health care system issue, you don't seem to understand that my point is that "health care system" includes, for the purposes of my posts, both the quality of health care and affordable access to it--in keeping with the tenor of the original post. Clearly, it doesn't matter very much if a country has the best health care system in the world if millions of its citizens have either little or no access to it or accessing it bankrupts them.

On the matter of the cancer 5 year survival rate study, you seemed to fail to understand my point about the potential systemic errors in the study and what consequences they might have. I pointed out some, another author identified others.

I hope you're now clear about what, in fact, my assertions are.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: NoJingoLingo I'm not speaking on the calculation of survival rates. But thanks fro trying.

I was in the post of mine you responded to.

Quote by: NoJingoLingo You seem to be saying, that " having the highest cancer survival rate in the freakin world" is good enough... not for the people dieing from cancer.

In terms of comparisons between countries healthcare systems, Yeah, survival rates wouldnt be a focus of attempts to improve healthcare relative to other countries. Trying to further increase our cancer survival rates wouldnt be the most effective use of resources.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: barts I would not be concerned about precision if I was confident you actually understood the points I am, in fact, making because it seems you're responding to points you think I'm making. On the health care system issue, you don't seem to understand that my point is that "health care system" includes, for the purposes of my posts, both the quality of health care and affordable access to it--in keeping with the tenor of the original post. .

Actually this has been obvious from the beginning. And Im responding to your points I have QUOTED.... repeatedly.

[tengers]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 Barts and I were discussing survival rates, not mortality. skins presented the nationmaster statistics to support her assertions. Perhaps even you can see that her characterizations above are not an accurate description of "close to the world average", perhaps not. The statistics are for 22 countries, not the world. No one is writing home. Barts is trying to support his assertion that we have the worst healthcare among developed nations, and that we do not have a high cancer survival rate. Skins that we have a higher cancer rate than anyone. We do not have the worst, we do have a high cancer survival rate and we do not have a higher cancer rate than anyone. These arent really judgement calls. They are facts.

This is a good source for world figures
WaterWatch -- Maps and graphs of current water resources conditions

Table 5 has world comparisons. The reason they tend to limit the countries is that in a a lot pf places, people don't live long enough to develop cancer. Table 5 combines the US and Canada, but the comparison is interesting with the rest of the world.

What is striking is the much higher incidence of cancer in the US/Canada versus Europe or Japan or Australia. What is also striking is the much higher incidence in men versus women. Thus, we have Cancer rates for Male / Female and Mortality for Male/Female of 370/277 & 177/94, whereas Japan has 271/167 & 154/79 and Northern Europe has 270/177 & 177/94. Thus we have 100 more people who get cancer than other modern nations and a marginally lower mortality rate (or marginailly better survival rate being 1-Mortality rate, if you insist). West Africa has incidences of 140/118 & 100/73. The latter is an example of early mortalities.

Thus, the thing that jumps out at you is the number of cancer cases in the US versus the world. The question then becomes are those 100 cases more survivable than whatever the rest of the world faces or do we spend a lot more money trying to cure equally difficult cases, or are we better. They seem to have the statistics on all of these types of diseases in the other charts.

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: tengers This is a good source for world figures WaterWatch -- Maps and graphs of current water resources conditions .

oooook, whatever you say there.

[lsbskins1]

The topic of debate is Insurance and Health care, not cancer survival rates in the US. And the issue at hand is not if the US is the worst or the best, the issue at hand is whether or not the US could get better results across the health care spectrum, for less money, by changing to a single payer system. The evidence provided supports this assertion.

barnhardt has degraded the debate by trying to focus on, either, some single aspect of the system where he can point to better than average results or on someone saying "worst" when they should have said "considerably less efficient and productive than is possible". It is all either a big semantic game or out and out deflection. Notice he is not really willing to advocate for any specific system, he is only willing to nit pick individual statements.

Please, lets remember that the issue at hand is not US cancer survival rates, it is can the US change from a predominantly privately funded, profit driven health care system and achieve better outcomes ?

[barnhardt2010]

I have been focusing on the bull sheet you people present to try and make your case. You would think if your arguments had any merit, you wouldnt have to constantly resort to hyperbole, half truths and blatant misrepresentation of the facts.
I simply made mention in passing that the US had higher cancer survival rates for most all forms of cancer. An accurate statement supported by multiple sources. You people are the ones who have turned it into a three day ordeal trying to deny that fact.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: barnhardt2010 I have been focusing on the bull sheet you people present to try and make your case. You would think if your arguments had any merit, you wouldnt have to constantly resort to hyperbole, half truths and blatant misrepresentation of the facts. I simply made mention in passing that the US had higher cancer survival rates for most all forms of cancer. An accurate statement supported by multiple sources. You people are the ones who have turned it into a three day ordeal trying to deny that fact.

Oh, you mean hyperbole like "any merit", ""constantly" and "blatant misrepresentation"?

And for two and a half days I have been trying to refocus the discussion. Seems you were rather committed to the course, rather than just mentioning something "in passing".

[barnhardt2010]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Oh, you mean hyperbole like "any merit", ""constantly" and "blatant misrepresentation"?

No, like

Quote by: lsbskins1 you are somewhere in the magnitude of 3 times more likely to get cancer,

Quote by: lsbskins1 our cancer rates are much higher than anyone else.

Quote by: lsbskins1 Yes, I said much higher than anyone else.