My Photo

September 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

BlogStats


« News sources legitimate, credible, impartial, and biased (updated 7jul17) | Main | Scattershots – 8jul17 (updated 9jul17) »

07 July 2017

Comments

Scott Obermuller

George, you're falling into a sucker's trap. The left only uses the 'everyone's gonna DIE!' BS because they haven't got any facts or reason. Of course we can point out cases of actual deaths due to govt run health care, but the left doesn't really care about people dying. Haven't you noticed they never bring up these cases of real people that really do die due to govt incompetence and greed? Because they really don't care.
Just look at what Paul (senior advocate of govt health care) writes here about why he wants to get rid of private insurance. 'Bloated executives' will be done away with. They're probably all male and Euro descent. I tried to ask him once about how much that will save the insured and he had no clue. He knows govt is far more wasteful but money will be directed toward govt workers who (total coincidence) will be handing more money to leftist unions and away from white males that will be (in his mind) handing it to ultra-conservative groups. Insurance companies are really investment companies. If you do away with health insurance companies, a huge amount of capital will be taken from being invested in profitable companies and sent to the bottomless pit of waste called the govt.
Evidence of other countries that haven't been able to run sustainable health care is of no consequence to fans of socialized medicine. They will simply claim it wasn't done correctly.
The real need is to find ways to vastly lower the cost of health care. We've done that in so many other areas. It can be done in the USA.

Don Bessee

Since Trump took office his administration has been doing some housecleaning at the VA (before the bill that was recently signed to ease disciplining fed employees).
526 terminations
94 suspensions longer than 2 weeks
27 demotions.
Under 0 - 0
;-)

Scott Obermuller

You mean no more parties in Vegas on the public dime? However can we have decent single payer health care with Trump's attitude?

Steve Frisch

And yet, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom all have universal single payer health care, provide it at roughly have the cost per capita and as a percentage of GDP than the US does its market based system, and all have a longer life span, lower infant mortality, a lower rate of preventable deaths per 100,000 people, consistently earlier intervention on chronic disease and consistently poll about 50% higher on satisfaction with their health care.

They just must be much more efficient over there than we are here :)

Steve Frisch

"half"

Walt

No Steve, it's not all that great.
I have plenty of kin I keep in touch with in Sweden. They say it sucks.
I will take their word over yours any day.

George Rebane

SteveF 907pm - Indeed they must be, but there's a lot more to their health care than meets the eye as presented by the lamestream. We have known several German families for over fifty years. As they and we were young/er, they thought their healthcare was marvelous. Now that they are older (our age) and have the onset of age related maladies, they wished they had something else beside what the government offers, something that was responsive to their medical needs. And comparing the stats of their demographics and culture to ours is a real apples and oranges bamboozle.

Steve Frisch

Silly me, I am depending on the anecdotal data collected by the Global Health Observatory in their annual peer reviewed statistical report and the World Health Report.

I am sure that if we compared a number of other demographic and cultural factors that we would find 1) all of these countries have healthier diets but pay more for their food, 2) all of these countries have lower rates of prescription and over the counter drug use, 3) all of these countries have longer times of paid family leave for illness and elder care, 4) all of these countries have preventative care programs.

I think I will stick with the statistics.

Steve Frisch

Posted by: Walt | 07 July 2017 at 09:15 PM

I love that 'trust your kin' comment. Do you seriously think I posted that without a pretty solid source?

Don Bessee

Ya sure bro we want just what the Italians have, jolly joker you are. We have states bigger than those populations. How is the VA working, oh I forgot you are not a vet. Go ask them, well other than the ones who died waiting. Did you hear about the parents in the UK who can not spend their own money on their sick baby if they wanted to? O care put us in that situation where we could not pay a provider directly to get the services from who we wanted and could pay for.

You can keep your insurance and keep your doctor if you like them is the biggest lie since the check is in the mail. ;-)

Scott Obermuller

"and all have a longer life span, lower infant mortality, a lower rate of preventable deaths per 100,000 people,..."
Very little of that has anything to do with their health care system.
Do those countries have to put up with the number of people that don't care about pre-natal care, or have to deal with Democrat-run cities that are shooting galleries?
And of course, a poll on how happy they are about a health care system that they can't do anything about - don't know about anything different and wouldn't know what else is available.
Total fail, Steve.
Why do those 'happy' folk go to other countries to seek health care?
Why do Canadians come to America for health care but no Americans go to Canada for the same?
From Steve - crickets.

Gregory

The WHO report that ranked the USA behind Cuba used as it's #1 criteria ... how it's paid for. A built in bias for single payer. It was, in essence, using France as the ideal, but then that WHO report was authored in France.

And another issue with Frisch's statistics... there are subgroups in the USA with a number of bad habits and poor diets. Compare white Americans to white Europeans for an apples to apples report.

Prenatal care was a hot topic, and the lack of good prenatal coverage was blamed for poor infant mortality stats in the black community... until it was found that latinas had even less prenatal care than black women, on average, but good outcomes approximating that of whites with more dollars for healthcare. Apparently beans and corn are better for you than most soul foods.

Don B 935. I don't know if those were the biggest lies or that the average family would save $2500 a year. Madness.

Scott Obermuller

I remember my cousin introducing his German family to our American relatives. His sister was dating an orthopedic surgeon. When the German father in law described his injury to his knee that caused him to limp badly, the surgeon inquired what had been done after the injury.
Bottom line - the wondrous German 'free' health care system had done nothing and cast him aside as a cripple and forced him into an early retirement on a pittance of his previous pay. It seems the American health care system would have easily fixed the injury. Oh, I know - just another single story that surely can't be indicative of a health care system that is way better. My cousin's father in law would not even begin to hear of the surgeon's offer to have the injury looked after in America. Gratis.
It would bring shame to the fatherland. Better to claim he had better health care and be a cripple than to have his injury fixed by a bunch of capitalistic leeches.
Question again to Steve - how many in America go to socialistic countries for free health care vs how many from those same countries come here for life saving care?
From Steve - crickets.

Scott Obermuller

Greg - my out-of-pocket went way up. Kinda scratching my head about idiots like Steve that still believe they are going to save 2.5K a year.
Maybe Steve can point out where the 2500 went to since he thinks he's so smart.

Bill Tozer

This topic has never tickled my fancy, nor has ever interested me, to be blunt. Just me, not the topic that many care and worry and fret about. With the disclaimer out of the way, I would simply point to what "single payer" means to me.

1) http://www.re-member.org/pine-ridge-reservation.aspx
The Federal Government via court rulings is responsible for education and health care on the Rez.

2) http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-second-lawsuit-veterans-affairs-information-non-veteran-use-massive-west-los-angeles-va-facility/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=ads&utm_campaign=promoted+content
That is some single payer.

3). Medicaid for all. Free physical once a year! Oh goodie goodie gumdrops.

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

"This topic has never tickled my fancy, nor has ever interested me, to be blunt."

I actually rather like it, but without details I'm pretty quick to lose interest myself. For a responsible person, it tends to be their largest fear as they age until they get dumped on the heavily subsidized public plan at age 65. Crank up 65+ Medicare premiums so that they actually cover the cost not previously paid for by pre-65 payments and the retired would be a lot less sanguine on the topic I imagine.

. The various sectors (pharma companies, hospitals, specialists, GP's, existing public insurers like Medicaid and 'care, etc.) are always conflated into 'healthcare'. Splitting them up might bring more nuanced arguments.

. All the countries listed by Mr. Frisch (who actually takes on the Thunderdome rather than dive bombing 'polls', so kudos to him) have different systems, but they are treated as being the same.

. I expect that most of those places have private insurers too. That's the thing that would allow people with some money to buy into a system created for the hoi polloi.

. The US system is hardly a free market, and is so filled with market distortions that I'm never sure why it's 'free' vs. the 'socialized' versions elsewhere.

. It wouldn't surprise me if every country mentioned (including the US) is headed for a cliff of medical expenses. It's rather hard to pass 100% of GDP for a single sector of the economy, but people are always willing to spend an infinite amount of OPM to live longer or at least out of extreme physical discomfort.

It'll be interesting to see if the US ever sets up a workable national system. One thing it lacks that the other countries didn't when they set up their plans is a monoculture. It's easier to care about your neighbors and feel some sort of civic interest in that case. Singapore might be the only exception I think.

Steve Frisch

Posted by: Don Bessee | 07 July 2017 at 09:35 PM


You might note Don that Italy was not on that list.

Germany 81.5 million people
Japan 127 million people
France 66 million people
UK 65 million people

Largest US State California 40 million people


ScenesFromTheApocalypse

re: Gregory@10:08PM.

Given the ability to put the families of humanity on a curve (for pretty much any behavior or ability), with fairly guessable results on the tails of the curve, I wonder how long until you see an uproar when using artificial intelligence for making public policy, security/policing issues, etc.

I keep expecting the Newsweek article on 'AIs are Racist!'.

Steve Frisch

Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 07 July 2017 at 10:17 PM
"and all have a longer life span, lower infant mortality, a lower rate of preventable deaths per 100,000 people,..."
"Very little of that has anything to do with their health care system."

To say that longer life spans, lower infant mortality and lower rates of preventable death have very little to do with the health care system is so laughable and illogical that it defies response. It is though people in America have adopted complete ignorance as a rationale for their pre existing ideological conditions.

I really can't help it if one of the causes of a higher preventable death rate in the United States is the proliferation of guns and the higher number of gun deaths....although I might add that almost 5 times more people died lat year from drug overdoses than they did guns. Perhaps if we didn't;t prescribe so may opioid drugs we wouldn't have that problem.

Finally, I love the 'why do they go other places for health care' meme. According to a recent study by VISA the United States has BY FAR the highest level of 'health care tourists' or people leaving their home country for medical care; there are 11 million people per year globally who travel for medical care and 1.4 million of them are US Citizens.

Facts are stubborn things.

Steve Frisch


"From Steve - crickets."

Hey Scott, you really can't claim crickets when you post at 10 pm and someone replies at 5:30 am. With all due respect I work hard every day so I am usually in bed either reading or asleep by 10 pm

Steve Frisch

Posted by: Gregory | 07 July 2017 at 10:08 PM

"And another issue with Frisch's statistics... there are subgroups in the USA with a number of bad habits and poor diets. Compare white Americans to white Europeans for an apples to apples report."

I am not even quite sure what to do with this hilarious comment. I'm not sure what you are trying to say Greg? Are you suggesting that Latino, Asian and African Americans have less healthy life styles than white Americans? That some of the countries I listed have better health outcomes because they are less diverse in their racial ethnic makeup?

The widely cited WHO study on Cuba v US was studying the cost effectiveness of health care not outcomes...and I DID NOT cite the Cuba WHO study because that was not the comparison I was making, I was making a comparison of cost and outcomes.

The bottom line is the countries I listed with universal single payer live longer healthier lives while spending half as much per capita and as a percentage of their GDP on health care. Is the solutions perhaps a combination of health care, preventive measures, quality diet, and lifestyle choices...yes I think i implied that.

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

"To say that longer life spans, lower infant mortality and lower rates of preventable death have very little to do with the health care system is so laughable and illogical that it defies response."

I'm not so sure that it's a bad question. When dealing strictly with averages, I'd say that (by far) the major improvements in those three issues came from the proper design of city water and sewer systems that occurred around a century ago. (I'd say you mean life 'expectancy' not 'span', the latter hasn't changed all that much).

Throw in low hanging fruit like antibiotics and better hospital sanitation, and you're most of the way there.

Now that the cohort born in an earlier era of health science is dying off, it wouldn't surprise me to see any increases in expectancy to be hard-won from here on. I'll bet you could get rid of quite a lot of the US health system and see scarcely any difference in life expectancy.

Steve Frisch

Posted by: ScenesFromTheApocalypse | 08 July 2017 at 05:33 AM

"I expect that most of those places have private insurers too. That's the thing that would allow people with some money to buy into a system created for the hoi polloi."

Scenes, just to be clear, I have never stated that a universal single payer system should or would mean an end to private supplemental health insurance...in fact I support the use of private insurance as a supplement to a single payer system.

However if you look at the statistics, lets's take France for example, the supplemental insurance market makes a very small portion of health care payments, really mainly for services that are supplemental to the health care treatment itself, and covering the co-pays, which are designed specifically to go down as the severity of illness goes up. The more chronic or expensive the illness the less someone pays as a co-pay.

Steve Frisch

But once again.....damn me for using actual studies, statistics and data when we could make decisions based on feelings, anecdotal stories from our kin, long held beliefs never seriously questioned that comport with our ideological identity.

"....no country has a laudable and/or sustainable government run healthcare system. All of them are ragged bureaucracies, delivering already bad services for a very high price."

I mean really George, if you are going to state that shouldn't you post some actual data to support it?

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

SteveF: "According to a recent study by VISA the United States has BY FAR the highest level of 'health care tourists' or people leaving their home country for medical care; there are 11 million people per year globally who travel for medical care and 1.4 million of them are US Citizens."

I strongly suspect that most of that medical tourism is not to first world countries.

ScottO: "Why do Canadians come to America for health care but no Americans go to Canada for the same?"

I'm willing to accept the notion that US healthcare is the best in the world (and probably part of the reason that we pay more, it's not just the underlying payment system driving prices down in other places) but is also more unevenly distributed and has a higher opportunity for pauperizing the recipient.

Steve Frisch

Posted by: ScenesFromTheApocalypse | 08 July 2017 at 06:15 AM

I do think that you are making a good point that our built environment has something to do with what you correctly note is life expectancy. Although things like air and water quality compare favorably between many of the countries I notes and the United States on thing that does not is pedestrian mobility. The built environment and the number of miles one walks versus drives directly correlates to rates of obesity, heart disease, respiratory diseases, diabetes and stroke.

Good point.

Steve Frisch

"I strongly suspect that most of that medical tourism is not to first world countries"

Actually that is precisely my point Scenes, Americans going to Costa Rica or India for a knee replacement or hernia treatment or reconstructive dental surgery for example can often get the surgery and the trip paid for for less than the COPAY in the US.

If we are so damn great, and efficient, and preferable why can Americans get better treatment at a lower cost in Costa Rica? I think that kind of counters the argument that we are the most efficient system.

But even more important, if it is indeed true that fully 10% of the worlds 'medical tourists' are Americans it demonstrates that the meme oft repeated here that everyone travels o the US for treatment is not necessarily true.

Yeah, I probably would not go to Thailand for an organ transplant but there are going to be a total of 30,000 organ transplants and 600,000 joint replacements a year in the US. One would think that if we are doing joint replacements at a 2% rate we could make it efficient.

Steve Frisch

According to statistics 52,000 Canadians traveled outside of Canada for medical treatment in 2014 or 1.1% of their citizens and 1.4 million Americans traveled outside of the US for medical treatment or .04% of our population. The reason appears to be wait times in Canada for elective surgery not critical care. The vast majority of Canadians traveling overseas were for elective surgery.

Steve Frisch

"...delivering already bad services for a very high price." --George

Every one of the nations I listed above deliver medical services at a lower price and with higher quality than the US. The US is actually ranked 11th world wide for quality of their health care services.

Steve Frisch

"The US is actually ranked 11th world wide for quality of their health care services."

I need to make a correct due to misreading a National Post article....the US actually ranks 37th in overall outcomes globally and ranks 1st for cost.

My apologies.

Scott Obermuller

"Hey Scott, you really can't claim crickets when you post at 10 pm and someone replies at 5:30 am."
I can claim crickets when you don't respond at all.
Still waiting...
"To say that longer life spans, lower infant mortality and lower rates of preventable death have very little to do with the health care system is so laughable and illogical that it defies response."
Well, I could claim the same about your ignorance.
But I can respond.
The best health care in the world available to the wealthiest people has been proven to be totally ineffective against poor personal life style choices. Oh sure, their money may have prolonged their lives a bit, but in the end, if you don't care about your health and even worse, don't even avail yourself of the care available, you won't last long.
Steve is ignorant of how many women show up at hospitals in the US to have their babies just after arriving from other countries. The lack of education of pre-natal care by the mother is sadly fatal for a lot of babies.
Those stats on infant mortality and longevity have to be corrected for levels of education, concern by the parents for proper life styles of pregnant mothers, eating habits, the amount of effort made by individuals to seek out health care and so on.
Poor people are poor in this country largely due to their own lack of initiative and poor decision making. It would follow that these attitudes will play a huge role in poor health outcomes in their lives.
The poor in this country already have access to better (and free) health care than many other developed nations. But all too many (sadly)just don't make the effort.
You can lead a horse to water...

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

"If we are so damn great, and efficient, and preferable why can Americans get better treatment at a lower cost in Costa Rica?"

Because they pay doctors and other health care professionals very little.

That does appear to be part of the solution. A nurse in France makes about 58% of one in the US, Brazil (as close as I can find to Costa Rica in the source I'm looking at) about 20%. You simply pay people less.

It's always going to be one of the problems you hit in instituting any of the European systems in the US. Either making everyone a .gov employee or using a single payer to dictate prices is going to drastically lower wages for medical professionals. I can just imagine the outrage when US doctors are asked to take a 50% haircut.

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

...not to be coy about a data source. I'm assuming that the percentage differences are unchanged from a decade ago.

http://www.worldsalaries.org/professionalnurse.shtml

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

ScottO: "The best health care in the world available to the wealthiest people has been proven to be totally ineffective against poor personal life style choices."

I think that's a fair thing to point out.

It would be interesting to see health outcomes for, let's say, German-Americans vs. Germans. My guess is that it's not dissimilar to firearms murder rates, etc. in terms of drawing up the difference significantly.

Steve Frisch

Yeah Scott the answer to your question about how children are born to unauthorized immigrants in the United States is about 295,000 per year, or 8% of births, larger than the 4% of the population made up of unauthorized immigrants, according to PEW research. That number is actually HIGHER in France, Germany and the United Kingdom.

I find it ironic that the answer to the question is anchor babies....Americas health acre system sucks because of...well anchor babies. What a crock of shit It is almost statistically insignificant compared to the other countries I mentioned with better health care outcomes.

Is the case you are going to make now that anchor babies from Mexico have worse prenatal care than anchor babies from Syria?

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

re: SF@7:53

I can't say that it's insignificant.

I spent a couple of minutes looking for numbers that look bonafide, rather than some kind of Dailykos/Infowars kind of deal.

In Arizona (from a UA study), uncompensated hospital costs a decade ago for one year ran $270M for native born and $143M for illegals (naturalized citizens barely showed up). I imagine that this number has increased since then.

Steve Frisch

I am sorry Scenes, is your case that the US and Costa Rica have roughly the same health outcomes yet medical professionals are paid half as much in Costa Rica?

Besides the point that having been to Costa Rica I can state unequivocally that the cost of living is roughly half as much as in the US, which is why it is such a popular expatriate destination, the seems like an argument that we pay roughly twice as much for the same outcome.

Is your case that American per capita and GDP health care costs compared to Costa Rica should be adjusted?

Great, then adjust the US system versus France, Germany and the UK, where the cost of living is roughly the same and THEY pay half as much.

Steve Frisch

Posted by: ScenesFromTheApocalypse | 08 July 2017 at 08:00 AM

I don't think using Arizona as a proxy for national statistics is valid.

Steve Frisch

PEW is not Infowars....

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/09/11/number-of-babies-born-in-u-s-to-unauthorized-immigrants-declines/

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

I am sorry Scenes, is your case that the US and Costa Rica have roughly the same health outcomes yet medical professionals are paid half as much in Costa Rica?

I'm guess that Costa Rican healthcare professionals make 20% as much as those in the US.

It's France that pays half as much (roughly).

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

I'm not judging Pew, I'm just leery of quoting any news site since the messenger always becomes the issue...although you should check out the history of it sometime. It's the canonical example of how, no matter how hard you try, a trust can be taken over by it's employees. The Sun Oil founders had *considerably* different politics than their charity does now.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that illegal aliens add a big tab to healthcare in this country. Arizona (like California) is a fine proxy since that is the front line and service as a form of miner's canary. I frankly don't see how you can have any kind of sizable public benefits and not enforce your borders, it's simply a matter of common sense.

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

"Is your case that American per capita and GDP health care costs compared to Costa Rica should be adjusted?"

I'm more making the point that health tourism is based not so much on good outcomes, the best in practically any country is pretty good, but that you are simply taking advantage of low wages in other countries. I can't say that cost of living is particularly low in the Third World if you look at the prices for refrigerators or cars. Humans are cheap, as are goods with super high labor content.

Maybe that is the answer. After outsourcing all manufacturing, followed by easily exportable 'knowledge' jobs, we can start being airlifted to doctors and hospitals in India. The remaining US economy can be based on coffee shops, plumbers, and bureaucrats.

Steve Frisch

Does everything discussed here always eventually circle back to guns, immigrants or climate change?

fish

Yeah.....single payer is going to be awesome......



"One million patients a week cannot get a GP appointment, statistics show"



https://twitter.com/telegraph/status/883200154735718402

Todd Juvinall

Yeah that single payer is so awesome. After the government takes all the rest of our hardworking citizen's money, we can rest easy. No worries, but forget the vacation to Cabo.

fish

Posted by: Steve Frisch | 08 July 2017 at 08:23 AM

Does everything discussed here always eventually circle back to guns, immigrants or climate change?


A comment so pithy it should be repeated at other sites!


Oh and Islam....never forget Islam!

Gregory

Frisch 734
"I need to make a correct due to misreading a National Post article....the US actually ranks 37th in overall outcomes globally and ranks 1st for cost."

Steve, that's the WHO report from a few years ago (no?) that ranks health care not by outcomes but a complicated mix of determinations, and the most heavily weighted was whether it was socialized or not. Read the fine print. It sounds like you've been listening too much to "Dr. Bill" Honigman, a SoCal regressive democrat who is a pied piper for single payer.

Frisch 610
I was thinking more of education, teen pregnancies and shooting each other in gang disputes. The reasons why, in general, black male in DC life expectancy is about 66 years while Asian female life expectancy in Massachusetts is closer to 92 years, and that's not because of socialized health care. It's a careful choice of one's gender, parents, and life's path.

Steve Frisch

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 08 July 2017 at 09:13 AM

I am sorry, I am still trying to figure out how you can possibly rationalize US citizens paying twice as much for a marginally worse outcome just because the payments get funneled through the top 10 health insurance companies in the US who control about 95% of the market?

What functional difference does it make who is the intermediary, the government of a private health insurance company.

Let's be clear this price differentia existed long before Obama Care, it has been true for more than 30 years.

If the money went to the government as an intermediary and the cost went down by 50% would that help or hurt the hardworking citizens you claim to be stating up for?

Steve Frisch

Greg the WHO study (and yes it was a few years ago) ranks health care by

Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy
Overall or average : 15%
Distribution or equality : 35%

Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
Overall or average : 12.5%
Distribution or equality : 12.5%

Fair financial contribution : 25%

The definition of fair financial contribution did not include the source of the contribution (private or tax).

The same results have been replicated since the initial WHO study by subsequent World Health reports although not aggregated into a singe world health report, by Bloomberg, the Commonwealth Fund, and numerous other academic researchers who do not take source of payment into account.

Todd Juvinall

Well as a non=prfit CEO I can understand why you have no clue about businesses that are in the private sector. Insurance is formed by people and companies betting their money you won't get sick and use their accumulated money. You as an individual are betting they will pay when you do. A simple contract. Not a right as the liberals and socialist are trying to make it. And it worked great until the democrats and Obama wrecked it. The real world is there in front of your face and everyone else's. We said this would happen. But you all want to take over the whole thing and it failed.

Remove the mandates and let companies offer whatever they want and let people buy whatever they want. One thing about the free market, if something is missing someone will step up to fill the void. We can keep help for the poor of course and Medicare people paid into the system so they are protected.

Steve Frisch

Posted by: Gregory | 08 July 2017 at 09:23 AM


So let me see if I have this right Greg,

"I was thinking more of education, teen pregnancies and shooting each other in gang disputes. The reasons why, in general, black male in DC life expectancy is about 66 years while Asian female life expectancy in Massachusetts is closer to 92 years, and that's not because of socialized health care."

So your case is that because we have more teen pregnancies and a proliferation of guns, more of our young people and minorities are dying....

(your choice to pick a black man in DC even though gun deaths are higher states with loose gun laws like Oklahoma and Arkansas https://qz.com/437015/mapped-the-us-states-with-the-most-gun-owners-and-most-gun-deaths/)

...that kind of seems like a case for better education, access to preventive care for women, and stricter gun laws than a case against universal single payer health care.

Steve Frisch

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 08 July 2017 at 09:53 AM

Hey Toddster, as the CEO of a corporation (non-profit or not) I pay $128,000 per year for health insurance for my staff of 20 and their dependents, meaning my guess is right now I know a hell of a lot more about shopping for health insurance than you do.

You are also factually incorrect that "it worked great before the democrats and Obama wrecked it.." we were ranked 237th and had double the cost before Obama was even a state Senator. The rate of inflation for health care was 3 times higher than the national rate of inflation during the Bush administration.

fish

Posted by: Steve Frisch | 08 July 2017 at 09:32 AM

If the money went to the government as an intermediary and the cost went down by 50% would that help or hurt the hardworking citizens you claim to be stating up for?


I'm pretty sure that nobody will be able to improve on this "Unintentionally Hysterical Line of the Day"!

Scott Obermuller

"I find it ironic that the answer to the question is anchor babies..."
No Steve - I never claimed that was the whole answer. Just part of it.
"Is the case you are going to make now that anchor babies from Mexico have worse prenatal care than anchor babies from Syria?"
No. It appears that Steve has given up having a discussion and is now just fabricating stuff.
"I am sorry, I am still trying to figure out how you can possibly rationalize US citizens paying twice as much for a marginally worse outcome just because the payments get funneled through the top 10 health insurance companies in the US who control about 95% of the market?"
Now Steve runs back to Obama's famous tack. If you don't agree to socialized medicine then you can only be for the status quo.
Sorry - no again, Steve. I'm for all sorts of changes to our health care system.
As far as it coming down to immigrants - well - you pass free health care for everyone in this country and I can guarantee you a mass of illegal entry to the US like you've never seen. All they have to do is make it to the hospital or emergency care and they win the jack pot. Why do you think California backed down from doing free health care? It would have bankrupted the state within a year, with folks from all over pouring in for their freebies.
That's why the left wants it nationally - the feds can print money and run up debt.
And finally - Steve comes up with the winner line of all -
"If the money went to the government as an intermediary and the cost went down by 50% would that help or hurt the hardworking citizens you claim to be stating up for?"
Steve apparently just fell off the turnip truck right next to the union hall.
Costs will go down 50%??? Is that like the 2.5K I was supposed to save?
Maybe Steve should look into the actual history of the US govt getting involved in health care. Costs to whom? And if we don't like govt health care, what option are we left with if the govt has the monopoly on health care?

fish

Posted by: Steve Frisch | 08 July 2017 at 09:58 AM

Anybody wants to check out Steves link needs to drop the "close parenthesis" at the end or it comes up error 404.

Todd Juvinall

Frisch 1004
No you are not paying anything. The taxpayers are getting hosed twice by SBC. If you made the employee pay the bulk of their own costs (and I bet they are young folks) that would free up more money to you for buying more property (which is also a negative to the treasury). Anyway, you appear to have no clue about this issue other than liberal talking points from Daily Kos and you tweets from the dems.

Oh I am correct about the health insurance issue before Ocare. Polls had people's happiness with their postions at about 90%. Pretty high.

George Rebane

A general note to SteveF and others who believe that every lap around a much circled barn (here nationalized healthcare) begins on the current page of RR. Detailed citations of the actual state of Europe's (let alone communist countries') healthcare systems have been provided abundantly here. The existential truth is that socialism, as illustrated by its various resdistribution and command/control policies is not and never has been sustainable for all the explained reasons. Here's a typical cited posting from the comment stream SteveF et al were conspicuously absent.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2016/05/sustainability-and-single-payer-revealed.html#more

But a specific response to longevity statistics is in order. Yes, it is widely known and extensively studied that 1) Americans en masse freely exercise unhealthier life styles (made available by our wealth and markets), and 2) yes, some ethnic groups differentially engage in particularly unhealthy eating, drinking, and drug practices (not restricted to the US, see mortality of Finns eating lots of butter), and finally 3) current day medical practices are still too primitive to have a significant effect beyond core human mortality rates, which they affect mainly on the margins (but they now have positively affected morbidity rates).

And here is a previously presented general rebuttal to national healthcare -
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/health-care-free-society-rebutting-myths-national-health-insurance

Gregory

Frisch 958
"So let me see if I have this right Greg"

Of course you don't, Steve.

"...that kind of seems like a case for better education, access to preventive care for women, and stricter gun laws than a case against universal single payer health care"
Funny that in Washington DC, a huge amount is spent on K-12 education, not to mention preventative care for women (like abortions) and has had the strictest gun laws in the country, only fairly recently pried open somewhat by Scalia's majority opinion in DC v. Heller in 2008.

"Gun deaths" are predominantly suicides, which is why folks like you on a vendetta against private gun ownership and the collectivist view of the 2nd Amendment use "gun deaths" as a metric rather than murder and other intentional criminal homicides in citations. The availability of a gun doesn't make someone suicidal but it does make the suicide attempt marginally more likely to succeed.

Here's the old WHO report http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf
The table with France at the top and the US barely beating out Slovenia and Cuba is on page 200 (209). Those socialized medicine shining lights such as Canada, Denmark, Finland and Australia aren't that much better than the USA by their methodology.

Steve Frisch

Seriously Todd you don't know anything.

First SBC derives a very small portion of our revenue, less than 20%, from public sources, and to do that we provide a service which would likely cost more from the private sector.

Second, you must not understand how a tax tempt corporation works---it merely means that revenue derived from activities that fulfill its tax exempt purpose do not pay income or corporate taxes--not that its revenue is derived from taxpayers. I can understand why you wouldn't understand this because although the organization you ran, CABPRO, claimed to be a nonprofit it was not, thus putting your donors in the position that if they claimed donations as tax deductible they were unwittingly lying to the IRS.

Third, SBC does not and never has purchased property for conservation or claimed an exemption for property...you must have us confused with a land trust. You do realize that land protected for conservation does still pay property tax right? It is up to the local tax assessor to decide if they want to reduce the value of the property and thus its assessed valuation due to a change in valuation, just like an other property owner.

Finally, when I stated SBC's pays health insurance I did not say 'our portion', we pay 100% of our employees health insurance costs.

Steve Frisch

Posted by: George Rebane | 08 July 2017 at 10:33 AM


They may be abundant and incorrect at the same time :)

fish

Posted by: Steve Frisch | 08 July 2017 at 10:44 AM


Since the question is back on the table......just what magic do you perform for PG&E that is worth 4.5M/year (approximately - before Charity Guidestar put the info behind an account wall)?

George Rebane

SteveF 1045am - Excellent! we have then settled the matter by abundantly airing our respective views and agreeing that the other's citations are incorrect.

Perhaps we should then move on to a debate on the more fundamental aspects of what defines reality (e.g. ontology) for the Right and Left.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2008/02/liberals-and-co.html
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2010/11/the-latest-volley-from-the-local-left.html
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2013/02/ideologies-and-governance-a-structured-look.html

fish

Posted by: George Rebane | 08 July 2017 at 10:57 AM


Love it when you post the "Oldies"!

Todd Juvinall

It looks like Mr. Frisch is unfamiliar with what he is doing. My goodness. SBC is really in trouble.

George Rebane

For a more positive approach to healthcare reform, I point you to the 8jul17 essay by Dr. Eric Topol, a cardiologist and professor of molecular medicine at the Scripps Research Institute in San Diego. Therein he presents a compelling case for rapidly incorporating available AI and genomics based technologies into a healthcare system that involves heavy patient use of interactive applications and remote physiometric sensing. These are features of the healthcare system long promoted in these pages.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-smart-medicine-solution-to-the-health-care-crisis-1499443449

fish

Speaking of "oldies"....here's a goody going out to you all......more of the outrageous comedy stylings of young Ben Emery!


George,

From the fact that you blanket me into a Marxist camp is not only ignorant on your part but irresponsible. It shows more and more that a good education and normal to high intelligence doesn't make a person immune to being ignorant. I am very busy this afternoon and will try once again to give you a the meaning of "rights", especially human rights.

Universal Human Rights Declaration

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Posted by: Ben Emery | 28 February 2013 at 01:49 PM

Article 29.

(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.


Oh that Ben....he slays me every single time he posts!

ScenesFromTheApocalypse

SteveF: "What functional difference does it make who is the intermediary, the government of a private health insurance company."

A good question. The corollary is "If insurance companies already provide a highly limited customer base (word of the day: oligopsony), why doesn't the price come down?"

It sounds to me like a small difference, although I expect that the back office at Anthem is more efficient than DMV. I don't expect that killing off insurers and starting up the US Department of Insurance would make a lick of difference (maybe). Keep in mind that the insurance companies already do all of the gubmints insurance work. It isn't like the feds actually administer all the different Medicare plans.

I admit that there is this theory that if you magically got rid of a few tens of millions of insurance executive compensation plans, it would magically pay for everyones healthcare. Hopefully no one here is so silly as to think that.

fish

Posted by: ScenesFromTheApocalypse | 08 July 2017 at 11:25 AM

I admit that there is this theory that if you magically got rid of a few tens of millions of insurance executive compensation plans, it would magically pay for everyones healthcare. Hopefully no one here is so silly as to think that.


Abandon all hope ye who commit here/there!

They are exactly this silly.....and more!

Gregory

Frisch?
Frisch?
Frisch?
Frisch?

Frisch 958
"So let me see if I have this right Greg"

Of course you don't, Steve.

"...that kind of seems like a case for better education, access to preventive care for women, and stricter gun laws than a case against universal single payer health care"
Funny that in Washington DC, a huge amount is spent on K-12 education, not to mention preventative care for women (like abortions) and has had the strictest gun laws in the country, only fairly recently pried open somewhat by Scalia's majority opinion in DC v. Heller in 2008.

"Gun deaths" are predominantly suicides, which is why folks like you on a vendetta against private gun ownership and the collectivist view of the 2nd Amendment use "gun deaths" as a metric rather than murder and other intentional criminal homicides in citations. The availability of a gun doesn't make someone suicidal but it does make the suicide attempt marginally more likely to succeed.

Here's the old WHO report http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf
The table with France at the top and the US barely beating out Slovenia and Cuba is on page 200 (209). Those socialized medicine shining lights such as Canada, Denmark, Finland and Australia aren't that much better than the USA by their methodology.


Bill Tozer

Hello. Disinterested third party Bill weighing in.

I am hearing a new twist of the SSS argument going around. Instead of stating how much money the individual will save under SSS, the agrument is how much CA will save. A Union commentator Pinky said it will save CA 50 billion bucks, Laurie Porter wrote yesterday SSS will save our State Government 35 billion clams a year.

"Single-payer health care will not cost California money. California currently spends over $365 billion a year on health care which includes Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, ACA subsidies, emergency room subsidies, insurance premiums for employees, costs to keep county hospitals open, mental health services, money spent by employers on health insurance premiums and other health benefits, and money spent by individuals on premiums, co-pays, deductibles, fees, medical equipment, and so forth."
http://www.theunion.com/opinion/columns/laurie-porter-single-payer-health-care-will-benefit-california/

So, here is my concern. We need to dismantle the entire employer sponsored health insurance system, group health insurance market (including union benefits) and add up the cost of all deductibles and co-pays the employee would use IF he used healthcare services or not in a given year) and throw in the cost of "medical equipment and so forth" so The State of CA can save money. Beam me up, Scottie.

My relatively short venture into employer sponsored health insurance was a sweet deal. Just 14 years or so, but when I started the employer paid 93% of the premiums, ER was a $75 co-pay, and the only deductible was $2,200 if I was hospitalized for MORE than 30 days in a semi-private (2 bed max) room. The first 30 days had a one time 15 dollar co-pay. Visits to the Doc were 10 bucks and specialists were a one time fee of 25 bucks, with all tests, operations, lab work, X-rays, MRIs, etc free for the next 6 weeks and all follow up visits covered in the 6 week period. After 6 weeks of the specialist's care and post op, the co-pay reverted back to the outrageous 25 bucks a visit. My last specialists charges between 600-900 bucks for a simple office visit. One charged $1,300 for a visit, but he was worth the 25 bucks. Sweet. Why use the friggin VA?

When I quit Corporate America, ER was an outrageous 125 bucks co-pay, but it included everything that the hospital had to offer, including the medical kitchen sink. Doc co-pays jumped to 15 bucks, and the only deductioable remained for after 30 days in the hospital, which jumped to $2,700, billed later.. 30 days in the nut house or rehab was free. Employer portion dropped way down to 83%,. Plus my premiums were paid in pre-tax dollars, lowering my AGI for income tax purposes at tax time. Double sweet.

So, if I understand this correctly, all that will be destroyed/dismantled/outlawed and IF I was still being a corporate shrill, I would be taxed more.....for less quality healthcare! All this to save Uncle Jerry and deadbeats and illegal aliens money???? Go pound sand.

Disinterested third party Bill the Rebel without a Cause and Rebel without a Job checking out. Carry on.

Bill Tozer

Or roads lose too

Paul Emery

George

Healthcare from hell is what will happen to 23 million families who will lose whatever pathetic healthcare they now have under Obamacare.

Paul Emery

Re Georges 11:14... Does that involve having your own choice of doctors as Trumpcare promises?

Don Bessee

The po' ol' fakenewsman needs to read the CBO report @ 1257 and not party parrot Maxine waters. ;-)

Todd Juvinall

No they won't. Tweak Medicaid a bit and all is good. They were much better off before Ocare since it is not possible to get to the policy. Deductibles and copays are too high. 23 million may have to fill out some additional paperwork but the other 300 million are going to be happy.

fish

Posted by: Paul Emery | 08 July 2017 at 12:57 PM


Don't worry Punchy....Obamacare isn't going anywhere!

Steve Frisch

Posted by: Gregory | 08 July 2017 at 12:22 PM


Don't get your overly sensitive man panties in a bunch there Greggy, I just had to go to the office to do a little work and stop by the Truckee Air Show to take a look at the planes.

Good fun.

You could go to any one of more than dozen international studies of quality and cost of health care and find similar statistics on the United States....for what we pay we suck...period. We could get the same heath care for half the price if we were more rational...but the funny little gremlins out there won't let us be rational....because they can use health care as a lever to create fear...all the while failing to serve the very people they say they are the champions of, the hardworking or indigent people of America.

fish

Posted by: Steve Frisch | 08 July 2017 at 01:56 PM

You could go to any one of more than dozen international studies of quality and cost of health care and find similar statistics on the United States....for what we pay we suck...period.


Indeed....and in USA 2017 there is no fixing that we suck.

Bill Tozer

Dr. Rebane @ 10:57 am.

"Perhaps we should then move on to a debate on the more fundamental aspects of what defines reality (e.g. ontology) for the Right and Left."

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10211627419136095&set=a.1023106092969.2004848.1084736013&type=3&theater

Gregory


My manly tidy-whities are far more appropriate than your frilly split-crotch panties in a knot, Steve.

Yes, US healthcare has been stretched from the horrid system of indirect paying for it... person A doing work for company B buying insurance from insurer C for person A and their families, ONLY because of the historic screw up in the tax codes and WWII wage and price controls that made the untaxed "fringe benefit" of health care so popular.

If Obama had insisted on rolling back that one provision that drives health care spending into the stratosphere, making healthcare benefits taxable income while making the change revenue neutral, we'd be on the way to something closer to a market solution already. Not that the GOP has the gumption to do it, either.

Gregory

We also pay through the nose hiring educational experts to teach the kiddies, Stevie.. and that's how the DC schools manage to produce so many functional illiterates at from (depending upon the accounting methods) $18k to $29k per student per annum. California's public schools aren't that much better but less money per student is poured down the CA rathole.

Steve Frisch

Here read this one:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/oct/us-health-care-from-a-global-perspective

Steve Frisch

[Steve, do us all a favor and just give us a link to your banner propaganda graphic like other commenters do on a regular basis. Thanks. gjr]

Bill Tozer

Love the vivid colors, Mr. Frisch. Brighter than most of my frilly panties. :)

Bill Tozer

Frisch:
Q: Do you know why we aren't like those other countries?
A: Because we are not those other countries.

If only we could be more Eurocentric. We can turn the Broad Street Furnishings building into a European style marketplace and then turn our healthcare system into a European model. Western European healthcare, preferably more northern Western European like Sweden. But, no. Big sigh.

Wait a cotton pickin' minute. That sounds like...drumroll please......like racism! Sounds like Trump's defending "Westetn Civilization." Them be racist code words. I know what you were thinking. How come you don't like Muslims? Noticed you did not tout any nation's from Africa or the Islamic World. Just France and Canada, Steve, Oh my, I do declare that you forgot to check your Lilly White Privledge at the door.

George Rebane

For those enthralled with the multifarious benefits of nationalized healthcare, I present one more example of them above in the 8jul17 update.

Todd Juvinall

The reason we have not gone the route of the Europeans and others who Frisch loves is simple. We have a Constitution like no other. We cherish choice (isn't that what those libs preach all the time) and they preach government ownership of you. I suggest all those who want them should move there and leave us alone.

Steve Frisch

Posted by: Steve Frisch | 08 July 2017 at 04:41 PM

Removed by George....seriously, I have seen other people embed graphics.

http://cdn0.mha.gwu.edu/content/6b2c06e164a84520927f7b0043671b76/US_Health_Care_vs_The_World.jpg

Steve Frisch

"Q: Do you know why we aren't like those other countries?
A: Because we are not those other countries."

Posted by: Bill Tozer | 08 July 2017 at 05:19 PM

"The reason we have not gone the route of the Europeans and others who Frisch loves is simple. We have a Constitution like no other. We cherish choice (isn't that what those libs preach all the time) and they preach government ownership of you. I suggest all those who want them should move there and leave us alone."

Posted by: Todd Juvinall | 08 July 2017 at 05:57 PM

Seriously I think you guys just love being stubbornly backward. Never mind that the data shows better care for less money and more satisfied clients...if it's European it must be wrong.

Can't ever win on the data...so attack the idea as somehow un-American.

Next you will be demanding that we rename pomme frites freedom fries.

Todd Juvinall

Actually, you are the one that is totally backward. Our ancestors escaped from the places you love and want to be like. We honor the individual. You honor canon fodder. We like to make our own decsions as individuals in America. We have had to fight off people like you all my life. You almost had the place but the American people tossed you aside on November 8. We on this side of the issue are all about the future for people to be free from you and your ilk. Your beliefs were tried many times and they all failed. Of course you can still move to North Korea or Cuba if you desire the commie fix you apparently desire.

Don Bessee

What a perfect closing line to a post by a limousine liberal @620. Sounds like you had the Dark Lord of Liberal Lament Land in mind. How do you say chili in French? ;-)

Don Bessee

@615- You could post your purty picture at the Dark Lords. ;-)

Bill Tozer

Pomme frites ? So, that's what deep fried Twinkies are called in foreigner lands where folks eat snails, eh? Learn something new everyday.

fish

Posted by: Steve Frisch | 08 July 2017 at 06:20 PM


Seriously I think you guys just love being stubbornly backward. Never mind that the data shows better care for less money and more satisfied clients...if it's European it must be wrong.

Can't ever win on the data...so attack the idea as somehow un-American.


Well when the architect of the current plan is revealed to have said in essence..... the following:


Let's first look at what Gruber actually said: He was defending the fact that the law was written behind closed doors and he said Democrats intentionally made the law confusing to mask the fact that the law instituted a new tax to pay for health reform. Why'd the Democrats do this? Voters don't like new taxes. Gruber said it was more important to get health reform than to be up front.

"It's a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter," Gruber said at the Honors Colloquium 2012 at the University of Rhode Island.

And: "They proposed it and that passed, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference," he said at Washington University at St. Louis in 2013.


http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/14/politics/obamacare-voters-stupid-explainer/index.html


...and President Bunnys famous line -


"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,"


.....and trouser biscuits like Paul Krugman continuously bleating about the cost curve. I guess the technocratic class is just about out of fucking credibility Steve!

(But hey.....by all means keep trotting out your marketing materials and all those government reports that you put so much stock in! You're probably only one or two more .pdf files from establishing consensus.)


Steve Frisch

Posted by: fish | 08 July 2017 at 07:13 PM


I am not talking about Obamacare Fish, but you are welcome to go down that road again....as a matter of fact you may be fated to since the President couldn't pass a law to rename a post office for Ronald Reagan right now.

Don Bessee

I see the eco warrior has picked up the party parrot job from the po' ol' fakenewsman @ 726. ;-)

Gregory

The problem with your data, Steve, is that it is cooked... with the worst stat of the bunch being immunizations... and it's the "progressive" crowd that isn't immunizing their kids (which is their right, if they aren't sending their kids to a public school). And then there's the treating of life expectancy as a function of health care rather than the mix of cultures in the US vs monocultural gene pools... like Scandinavia, Japan, and formerly France and Germany (now, not so much).

Stevie, a question you never answered... is the so-called "Sierra Business Council" a gun free zone and if the answer is yes, is it a real (meaning metal detectors) gun free zone or pretend (meaning it's on the honor system)?

George, regarding the sad case of little Charlie Gard, I think its a shame that the kid, already brain damaged from his rare malady, has parents wishing to submit him to a purely experimental treatment. Yes, I believe they should have a right to ask others to donate the money for the experiment planned for the kid and the government health service should have kept their hands off, but we do need to let go when it is time.

fish

Posted by: Steve Frisch | 08 July 2017 at 07:26 PM


Not my argument at all Steve. If you think you can sell European style health care after the blatant fuckuppery of O-Care I'm all ears as to how you're going to get it rammed through!

I'm going to make some popcorn and wait for your presentation!

George Rebane

Gregory 737pm - not disagreeing with you, but that is not the issue I brought up. According to my lights, it's the parents' right and duty to determine when they should 'let go' of little Charlie. To rule otherwise has put us firmly on the road to a very scary brave new world which our leftwing neighbors like SteveF et al cannot wait to usher in. And I do note that we do address their criticisms of a market-driven healthcare system, yet they are silent when we present evidence countering govt healthcare which their lamestream also conveniently ignores. As I've stated before, we live in totally different worlds in which neither wants the other to prevail. And their most cynical argument, well exercised by the USSR and clients, is that we should just accept whatever autocracy the manipulated majority du jour decides, for after all, that is democracy (and aren't we all for democracy?).

Todd Juvinall

Parents should be left to that decision. No death panels needed from government.

Frisch seems to have been shut down about his love for the governmet run health stuff. How any American would give up their personal sovereignty and allow the state to own their body is beyond me. Frisch must hate himself.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad