“I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat, sir!” -Will Rogers
The US still comes out better using the UK’s own numbers.
Anyone?
You know, if you do enough different comparisons, you can usually find one that proves Nazi Germany had more automobiles per capita than the contemporary United States, or that Mao’s China had more iron smelting facilities than the US.
Such comparisons are meaningless without looking at a broad range of related statistics, and anyone with a lick of sense and a touch of intellectual honesty should know that.
Conspiracy? Nah, we’re just talking corporate campaign finance and hardball media politics. The Blue Dogs are the votes the dems can’t count on in this fight. The ‘why’ of that seems pretty obvious, though I’ll weigh your other points too.
To continue, check out Olberman’s (admittedly somewhat ranty) take on the subject. His points start at around 3:00 in the video if you want to skip the commentary. He discusses the Blue Dogs after he’s done with the R’s.
Hey stupid-ass, I was responding to an article posted in response to my cite of a single stat. The article talks about that single stat. Therefore, the whole discussion we were having (before your stupid ass shit in it) was about a single stat. So you can take your faux claim to the high horse and stuff it.
Yes, a little bit. However, given that we spend twice as much on treatment, we should be coming out a lot better- and in more meaningful metrics such as infant mortality, we’re behind.
I mentioned this in the GD thread, and repeat the snide inference here, under the safety of Das Pit.
I think…I suspect, but cannot prove…that the reason the health insurance companies are going totally ballistic on this is that they lost a butt-load of money in the recent debacle. If they were more solvent, they might take a “wait them out” approach, compromise here and there, tighten their belts, ride it out.
This sort of scorched earth approach is dangerous, it courts backlash. Not their style, unless they have no choice. To an extent, their profitability depends on image, being seen as sober and responsible stewards. That image is already hurt by their practice of screwing people over, as well it should.
But any new legislation is likely to entail a close examination of their books, that dastardly government intrusion that hinders entrepreneurship and vigorous innovation.
So, maybe its not so much that they might be driven broke, but that they already are, and need the breathing room to harvest more cash. What is being proposed is not so radical that it would crush them if they were healthy. They’re not, so they have to utterly crush this, and the risk doesn’t matter.
The fact that Americans as a whole spend more on health care is no reason to think that the 5-year survival rate for prostate cancer should be “a lot better” instead of just however better it currently is. You are comparing apples and oranges. More generally, there is no reason that US outcomes should be twice as good just because we spend twice as much. The extra amount we spend may just be what it costs to get the extra good outcomes we get.
Also, I’ve heard that the higher infant mortality rate is explained by the fact that we try to save a lot more infants in the first place–so its really just an accounting artifact (meaning that other countries with lower infant mortality rates just have higher “died at or before birth” rates).
I was under the impression that infants who die after birth are counted in the IM rate. Do you have a citation for that?
Did you mean before birth?
I’ll google up something later.
Also, bad form for you to ask for a cite of my refutation of a claim you provided no cite for.
Oh, come on. It’s been mentioned and cited ~1,000,000* times in the various healthcare/death panel/fascist medicine threads currently running- but here you go.
*not to be taken literally.
“If I’ve told you once, I’ve told you a million times! Stop exaggerating!”
- My Mom. Yours too, probably…
The repubs are good little soldiers and follow their leaders very well. When they are told how to vote on a bill by their lobbyists and leaders, they do so with few exceptions. That gives them power beyond their numbers because the dems are a party of disparate interests. They have blue dogs, southerners and New Englanders that defect for local and personal reasons. They potentially have 60 votes, but it is rare to keep them together. The Bush years showed how well the repubs can follow orders.
I can’t find a cite to back this up, so take it for what it’s worth: On NPR news a little while ago, I heard a report that one or several Congresspeople have sent a letter to I think it was six of the largest health insurance companies requesting a buttload of financial information – salaries, expense ratios, profit margins, stuff like that.
I think it might make for some compelling propaganda – oops, informative advertising – to take the annual compensation (in all forms) of, say, the CEO of the largest health insurance company and figure out how many people could afford that company’s basic coverage plan for that amount of money.
Utterly unfair? You betcha! Eye-openingly effective? Could be.
Is there some reason why that wouldn’t already be public knowledge? These are publicly traded companies, yes? Groaning under the yoke of burdensome regulation, yes? Why would it take a letter from ol’ Hank “The Moustache” Waxman to pry such information loose?
And you guys are the ones accusing the other side of using scare tactics.
Dunno, luc, and I was wondering that myself as I listened to the snippet. Maybe it’s part of the formal fandango necessary to get such facts officially ensconced in the Congressional record?
I proofread hearing transcripts for one of my state’s regulatory agencies, and anything that’s meant to form the basis of rulings and orders has to be formally taken into the record of proceedings in order to have legal validity as evidence.