Ooh, yeah, that less than four percent of the population is really affecting our stats. And not the 4-5 times that of uninsured citizens.
–Cliffy
//Dammit Jim, I’m a doctor, not an economist!//
The article says that he would have lived if he’d gotten to a dentist and gotten a tooth extraction. Would he have been saved if we had universial health care before his death? With private insurance dental procedures are not covered (that’s what dental insurance is for), are they proposed to be under UHC?
As for infant morality, doesn’t a huge part of the differences between mortality rates depend on what countries consider a “live birth”? There are countries that count a baby who lives less than 24 hours as a stillbirth, while in the US we count it as a live birth if the child lives minutes. Are there any stats that compare stillbirth rates between countries?
Why should it be so dramatic, why must it be people dying, which almost surely they do. But why not just as well focus on having people being healthy, productive little worker bees? People have to die before we give a rat’s?
Read my statement again: “We have among the worst life expectancy and infant mortality rates in the industrialized world.”
Depending on your definition of “industrialized world” this could mean anywhere between the top 25 to the top 35 nations in terms of HDI or standard of living - not 195.
I still stand by my statement - statistical significance notwithstanding, the general trend has been that other advanced nations are overtaking us across the spectrum of healthcare metrics. And we’re not dealing with small samples with large deviations here.
I’m sorry, this doesn’t wash - France has an immigration rate approaching that of the US, and the UK isn’t far behind - a large percentage of their immigrants come from Africa and Eastern Europe, areas with much higher infant mortality rates. Yet they both have significantly better infant mortality rates, plus France has a life expectancy 2.7 years longer than ours. And it gets worse when you look at the under-five mortality rates.
Define “very low” birth rate. . . countries like New Zealand (a 20% better infant mortality rate - birth rate: 13.7 compared to our 14)? Or maybe Ireland (close to a 30% better infant mortality rate, birth rate: 15.5)? Or Israel (with a 34% better IM rate - really squeezing them out with a birth rate of 19)? Wait, these numbers aren’t trending the way you expected, are they?
For a country that spends more than any other country on healthcare as a % of GDP, it is plainly obvious that we’re doing a piss-poor job of managing the health of our citizens. It’s time to look at a system that is clearly working for the rest of the developed world, and drop all the socialist bugaboo BS.
By the way, there are complete tables gathered by various sources consolidated on wikipedia (I used the CIA World Factbook tables):
Worse yet, I imagine is the people who die because they did not get the quite cheap preventative treatment or early stage treatment. In fact, in the end, they might end costing the system more AND dying unnecessarily…a lose-lose scenario.
I didn’t catch this on preview - as far as I know, I would presume my source (the CIA World Factbook) uses the WHO’s figures, defined here.
In a way my mum died because of it. At 9pm she called her doctor who said if she felt worse she should go to the emergency room otherwise he’d see her in the morning.
I remember her saying something like “Yeah it’ll cost me $75.00 to go to the ER” (that was 1980), so she said, “I’ll wait.” She had a heart attack a few hours later and died.
So while it’s not exactly what the OP wanted had she had enough money where it didn’t matter to her, she’d have been alive. Even the ER doctor told me if I had brought her in a few hours before they could’ve saved her.
Very sorry about your mother. But I think you must have meant to post this in the Since 1970, has anyone in the USA really DIED because they couldn’t afford health care? thread.
I’ve moved Markxxx’s post to the correct thread. It was originally posted to the thread about government “czars.”
But if you read the story there, you will see that the boy’s family was part of a national health care plan: Medicaid. While it was temporarily suspended at the time, the paperwork was caught up in bureaucratic hell, and the inefficiencies of bureaucracy ended up killing him.
Is this the solution? Put all of us in this type of plan?
And God forbid we even talk about personal responsibility of the parents. That’s not allowed in society today. Dad isn’t even mentioned in the article. Mom keeps having kids she can’t afford, and doesn’t take her kid to the dentist when his tooth hurts.
I know, she can’t afford 80 bucks, but I would be willing to bet that in that situation I could have found the money. But again, responsibility is not a word we are allowed to talk about. Government must be our servants and masters.
You’re arguing against yourself - her problem was she lost Medicaid access and her request for reinstatement was lost in the system. If every US citizen were entitled to healthcare as a basic right (ideally through a single-payer system), eligibility wouldn’t have been an issue.
As for the rest of your statement, well, I didn’t quote it because it’s not relevant to the OP. Do you want to address the OP’s question - “has anyone died since 1970 as the result of a treatable condition?” Or do you want to throw around the same elitist “welfare mother” arguments that made the right-wing all look like douchebags back in the 90s? I thought we were past all that, but apparently not.
Why would this new bigger government program run with better efficiency than the one that ended up killing her kid? I never get this from the pro UHC folks. They seem to agree that government programs are hideously run, but for some reason a single-payer system would be one of unheralded efficiency.
You think that no paperwork, applications, transfers to new addresses, and the like would get lost under ObamaCare?
There was woman at the recent health committee hearings about Rescission (the policy of finding some small print to cancel people’s health insurance when they come down with expensive conditions) who was in the process of dying because her insurance refused to fund a mastectomy:
Also at the hearings:
Just so you know, the program Obama is supporting is not a single-payer system. The closest thing to that in the proposed plans is the creation of a publicly-run insurance program which would be one option among many private ones for people to choose. But even this so-called “public option” is not the centerpiece of the legislation and may be replaced by some other mechanism for encouraging greater competition among private insurers.
Thus, if you believe the government is worse with paperwork than private insurers (and I have no idea why you’d believe this - in my experience the government is much much better than private corporations in receiving and retaining important documents), you simply wouldn’t choose that option.
Most countries with UHC have leapfrogged the US in basic healthcare metrics in the past 20 years. Did you look at any of the information I linked to? Sure, it takes a little digging around looking at boring old facts to develop an informed opinion, but please do yourself a favor.
Here’s the deal - if we do UHC right, it could have a fundamental impact on the well-being of our lower and middle classes. You know, the folks that our consumer-driven economy is built on. Even if you don’t think that open access to health care is a basic human right, as I do, you have to acknowledge that a healthier populace makes for a healthier and more productive economy.
And if we do it wrong, as you seem to think is bound to happen, maybe some well-to-do folks will start dying and the politicians will start looking for real solutions instead of kowtowing to the insurance companies.
The truth is, almost every one of is going to die because we can’t afford better heath care. For example, if I had an EKG and cholesterol screening done every day, I could greatly reduce my risk of having a heart attack. However, it would be quite expensive. You could argue that anyone who has a heart attack died because they couldn’t afford the heath care that would have prevented it.
You may want to make a distinction between someone with a critical problem vs someone who has a chronic problem which got worse because of suboptimal care. If you’re having a heart attack, the hospital will treat you regardless of your ability to pay. But an uninsured person may not get the therapy after the initial treatment and that may lead to them dying.
In the example I gave the problem was pretty critical (aggressive breast cancer) and the treatment that was denied was not some cutting edge experimental drug, but a mastectomy.
First, I’m not sure what argument you’re making - are you saying “perfect, constant preventive care will never be available so why try?” Or are you saying “the benefit is in post-incident care, not preventive treatment.”
Second, whatever your point, heart attack isn’t the best proof. A heart attack is usually not a critical standalone incident - with proper preventive care, folks prone to heart disease can usually get some advanced warning that something is wrong, and manage their condition accordingly. So the guy who’s had solid insurance coverage all his life is more likely not to have a heart attack, compared to the guy who’s never had insurance and thus never had a preventive checkup.
I don’t think anyone except Mr. Strawman is saying that a public option plan (note: vastly different from single-payer) would be exempt from bureaucratic difficulties. Us pro-UHC folks are just saying that the status quo sucks. We spend more on health care than anyone else, and yet our numbers are comparable to a nation like Slovakia (sorry, Slovakia). The system’s broken. That doesn’t mean a public option would be perfect, but it almost certainly has to be better. Especially when you consider the indirect effect of making private insurance companies have to improve their services to remain competitive.
And if it doesn’t? If a public option would be worse than our extant tower of shit? Then fine, you win. If you had any confidence in the current Goldbergian system, you’d don a flight suit and start shouting “Bring it on” to the public option, just so you can demonstrate how superior the private sector is. But you’re not. Why is that?