Already answered in the GD thread. But, don’t you think it odd that good outcomes (and a healthy population) just happen to correlate to UHC?
As for the healthy Canadian diet, I give you Poutine
The simplistic pro-UHC talking points aren’t improving either.
The US is #1 in obesity: Canada is #11. The US is #115 in smoking and Canada is #125. On BB, so google yourself.
Again with the simplistic explanations. Yeesh. If the US dignoses disease better, it doesn’t mean the US would necessarily have better health outcomes than Canada. The other factors (ie, obesity etc) could overshadow the better diagnosis effect. Also, people with certain types of diseases and disorders may be diagnosed in the US and get costly health care that doesn’t prolong their life, whereas in Canada they would just die without the costly health care.
Again, just because the US may be able to keep sick people alive longer does not mean that the US would have a longer average lifespan. Also, the burden is on pro-UHC people that cite simplistic talking points to prove that UHC is better. I have the luxury of being able to point and laugh from the sidelines until they prove their case.
You are conflating health insurance with health care. We are discussing health care costs, not health insurance costs (at least that’s what I thought–see my comment above about the interpretation problems with precisely defining “money spent on health care”).
I would no more waste time debating health care with Rand Rover than I would debate religion with a young earth fundamentalist homophobic born again christian. Some folks are so set in their ideologies that discussion is not possible.
Please. In that thread I provided a link to an article discussing lots of studies about the negative economic effects as taxes are increased. I linked to data showing that Canada has had high unemployment for a long time (and it took the second worst depression ever for the US to catch up). I linked to articles discussing how smart people (ie, those with the ability to create value for the economy) are leaving Europe in droves. I linked to CIA factbook data showing that you were wrong about the relative debt as a percentage of GDP in the US and Canada. You hand-waved it away by simply co-signing a non-responsive post from elucidator.
Also, I’ve never invoked the American exceptionalism argument. Because it is absurd. UHC and other such long-term entitlement programs are a bad idea everywhere, not just in the US.
You are the one that ignores facts that don’t fit their world-view. Your posting history in the last week or so across three different threads makes this very clear.
So I can work a little longer, or knock off for the day and pick up some poutine on the way home. That’s one heck of an ethical decision I’m faced with.
Fuckit. It’s poutine time.
The US government took steps to address smoking - it has not taken steps to address obesity. Perhaps there is a correlation. Do you think that the free market was responsible for this wonderful reduction in smoking?
What evidence would you accept. I posted the reduction in GDP cost in the other thread, which you ignored. We know about the outcomes, which you dance around. We have a reasonably A-B comparison with Canada, which you reject. What evidence would be convincing?
Every doctor’s office has someone doing insurance full time. The large clinic I go to has an immense staff doing insurance. They could mostly be eliminated with UHC that is money spent on health care, is it not?
May God have mercy on your stomach. Calvin Trillin had an article on Poutine in the New Yorker , and it is the one thing he wrote about I have no desire to try. And I have lived in Cajun country, so I eat any damn thing.
It’s a bit of a Dantesque thing, with poutine at the eigth circle of the gustatory inferno.
The ninth is poutine with bacon pieces on top.
It’s a miracle that any of us make it to middle age eating that stuff.
That’s because despite the lies told by Republican leadership, they fully support Bunning’s filibuster. By fully, I mean every last Republican senator:
Democrats May Force All-Night Session
GOP senators seem to think that pretending to care about $10 billion dollars is more important to them than good governance.
This is pretty mainstream behavior for the party that took us into Iraq without due diligence, ruined the economy through failure to regulate, and stood around twiddling their thumbs while New Orleans drowned. They probably think it’ll garner em a few more votes if the economy still sucks, and people are hurting come next fall.
Fuck your health care debates - there are plenty of health care debates on this board. go bitch at each other there. We are here today to call Senator Bunning an asshole, and that’s it.
Let’s not forget that flood insurance has also lapsed thanks to his bullshit. Plus, there are several hundred thousand people losing their federal benefits this week. Plus, the DOT workers just got furloughed.
Fuck Bunning. I think we should take the time to replace all the old white men in gov’t with someone else. Even if its another old white man, at least it would be a different one. Lets get to the point where gov’t is actually representative of our population.
But fucked if I’m running for office. Its far easier to bitch about it online that actually do it.
Oh my god, that’s so sickeningly awesome. I want some poutine right NOW.
But I’m a good American and I can delay gratification. I’ll dutifully wait until we get UHC here so that I can stuff myself full of gravy fried curdy goodness and have that heart bypass on the taxpayer dime. I owe myself at least that much.
Yes, I’m sure you sat down one day and took a hard look at UHC with no biases or pre-concieved notion, scrupulously examining the facts, refining your questions and re-examining everything based on each new piece of data. There’s no way that UHC just fit into how you think the world should work.
Really, even though I’m perfectly willing to debate the practical effects of my philosophy and have done so time and again, I think that the distinction between a belief being fact-based versus ideology-based is in large part a false one. People form their ideology based on their view of the facts, which is informed by (and inextricably affected by) their ideology. There is no chicken or egg, it’s all just an egg-chicken scramble with turtles all the way down.
Don’t forget that filibusters like Bunning’s, but on everything, are what Republicans have threatened to do if Democrats choose to use Reconciliation to get health care reform passed.
Bunning’s filibuster has more than a little flavor of a deliberate ‘shot off the bow’.
May I make a comment? I’ve been (for the most part) silently reading some of your posts.
You have no facts at all, and your so called philosophy of self entitlement and self declared superiority is just a buch of nonsense. It’s all about you and to hell with anyone else. I have yet to see you say or offer anything worth reading, much less debating.
I don’t understand the relevance of this comment to the current discussion.
Well, evidence that addresses the points I raised would be convincing. I haven’t seen any yet. I’ve just seen pro-UHC people raising their same tired talking points (and then, like Muffin, running away when their ignorance gets fought).
I don’t know, is it? That’s the point–what goes into these numbers?
Also, pro-UHC people tend to treat money spent on administration as necessarily a bad thing, but it’s just a byproduct of our system, it’s not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. I mean, think of all the administration costs of all the different food growers and distributors and retailers, each with accountants and HOUR people and IT people–is that an argument in and of itself to socialize food production and distribution? Also, if people had the ability to choose their health insurer and health care providers with more freedom than they do under the current syustem, then they could drive administration costs down through competition.
And this proves what exactly? Despite what you seem to think, it does not prove that Americans are inherently unhealthy, nor does it prove that UHC is not working in Canada and could not work in the US.
Which would reveal itself in a shorter average lifespan for Canadians. Except it doesn’t. We live longer. Which actually kind of disproves your point.
We don’t “just die” without the costly care.
We live longer.
With cheaper care.
That’s the point of UHC.
The fact that UHC in Canada costs less and that UHC in Canada results in better health outcomes is not a talking point. It is a factual piece of evidence that you simply wave away, or claim that it could never work for the “exceptionally fat and unhealthy Americans” , or make the false claim that the Canadian economy must be terrible because of UHC (when it is demonstrably not!)
You wave it away because UHC does not fit with your pre-conceived simplistic ideology of “no government is good government”.
You have that luxury because you make 250K+, and have a good health insurance plan. Keep laughing and pointing while your fellow countrymen get sick and die.
You are simply wrong, and obviously so. The reason I hold my beliefs is that I think everyone would be better off under a government that is run according to my beliefs. I’m sure you feel the same way. I therefore don’t see how my philosophy is all about me.
Because you ignore factual information that is at odds with your worldview.
Health administration costs: $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada.
And yet you have the amazing BALLS to say that
So high administration costs are A-OK, as long as they’re done by private business, but as soon as they are incurred by a government, they’re bloated bureaucracy , right?
I didn’t offer it up as prrof of either of those things. They are just meant to illustrate factors other than the quality of health care that go into whether a population is healthy. The point is that a less healthy population is not proof of a worse health care system because of these other factors.
Again, you missed the point. Say there are two exact people, one in Canada and one in the US. They both drop dead on their 30th birthday. One thing that could partially explain higher US health care costs is if the US doctors found a health problem with the US person and that person got health care, whereas the Canadian docs didn’t find a health problem with the Canadian person.
The statistics on average lifespan and infant mortality etc would pick up this situation. You have to dig deeper. So far I haven’t seen pro-UHC people willing to dig deeper. They just trot out the same tired talking points that Muffin did.
How am I waving it away when I am engaging every person that responds to me with points they can’t answer? You have failed to grasp every point I’ve made in this thread. I’m engaging in debate on the facts, I’m not waving anything away.
I know, I have more money than most people so I’m a bad person. Nice argument on the facts you are making there.
And it’s not just Canada. The UK, France, Japan, Germany, every country one might consider the developed, first world, leading nations. Costs are lower, and the cost/outcome ratio is better.
But back to the subject at hand. Not only is Bunning obstructing important funding, he’s now blocking every single Obama nominee from coming to a confirmation hearing or vote. There’s no fiscal reason to “justify” that, it’s just pure, unadulterated, inexcusable obstructionism for its own sake.