fact check Rush limbaugh leaving country i fheath care passes

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3245577
You shouldn't accept that. You should investigate it for yourself.
The service is in no way comparable. The German, aka Bismarck, system (which is not relegated to Germany, it is just so named because they invented it) is superior to ours in rates of: Life expectancy, infant mortality, cancer survivability, incidence of heart disease, per capita rates of specific cancers and per capita treatment costs.
The system, although privately administered, is mandatory, single payer and non-profit. It is, however, overseen and, when necessary, arbitrated by the government.
Oh, and what would here be logically considered "frivolous" lawsuits are laughed out of court there.
I don't know what else to tell you beyond that. The stats are easily and readily accessible and I have posted them on numerous occaisions. Please look them up. If you can demonstrate otherwise, I'd love to see it.
Still can't grasp the concept of the flaws in comparing infant mortality rates I see

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3245681
Still can't grasp the concept of the flaws in comparing infant mortality rates I see

Regardless...it doesnt discredit the statistics that are shown to have better success/care.
Believe it or ot the germans do things very efficiently...they always have. They are a no nosense population. Which is why i feel their system would not work here.....our society is to frivilous.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3245712
Regardless...it doesnt discredit the statistics that are shown to have better success/care.
Believe it or ot the germans do things very efficiently...they always have. They are a no nosense population. Which is why i feel their system would not work here.....our society is to frivilous.
Oh I ain't knocking it. I'm just saying we can't get there from here. Even assuming the government could get away with seizing most of the hospitals and decreeing that 89% of health insurance companies are now not for profits the trial lawyers would never sit still for the German legal system.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3245717
Oh I ain't knocking it. I'm just saying we can't get there from here. Even assuming the government could get away with seizing most of the hospitals and decreeing that 89% of health insurance companies are now not for profits the trial lawyers would never sit still for the German legal system.

Esp as the trial lawyers are big $$$$ donors to the dems ( and r's too). Plus with al the lawyers making the laws they ain't gonna kill that golden goose.
I was reading a article in the local paper about how many c sections there are. Well, want level of risk do you want. Maybe it is "normal" for every 10 births to have some kind of injury/complication/death. Our legal system basically puts a 0% risk on every procedure. So, your wife is on the monitor and has 1 decel. Off to the OR as the legal risk is now higher than the medical risk.
Lawyers force more procedures than physicians.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3245681
Still can't grasp the concept of the flaws in comparing infant mortality rates I see

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3245577
You shouldn't accept that. You should investigate it for yourself.
The service is in no way comparable. The German, aka Bismarck, system (which is not relegated to Germany, it is just so named because they invented it) is superior to ours in rates of: Life expectancy, infant mortality, cancer survivability, incidence of heart disease, per capita rates of specific cancers and per capita treatment costs.
The system, although privately administered, is mandatory, single payer and non-profit. It is, however, overseen and, when necessary, arbitrated by the government.
Oh, and what would here be logically considered "frivolous" lawsuits are laughed out of court there.
I don't know what else to tell you beyond that. The stats are easily and readily accessible and I have posted them on numerous occaisions. Please look them up. If you can demonstrate otherwise, I'd love to see it.
Still don't get how these "examples" you give are a reflection of our healthcare system... And not a much larger reflection on our lifestyles... Maybe you could argue cancer survivability, but that is about it, of the statistics you suggest I look up...

 

[reefraff]

I know this has been posted at least a couple times before during the health care debate but lets give a refresher course
From US News and World Reports
"First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country. "

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3245800
Still don't get how these "examples" you give are a reflection of our healthcare system... And not a much larger reflection on our lifestyles... Maybe you could argue cancer survivability, but that is about it, of the statistics you suggest I look up...
I made no mention of cancer survivability. What I said was "per capita rates of specific cancers" (which the US leads in a number of cases.)
Here's why:
Survivability and incidence are two different things. Survivablility is largely correlative to the type of cancer in question along with the region where one receives treatment (i.e. Eritrea is a worse place than Belgium to receive treatment - but Belgium is roughly equivalent to the US.) Some cancers are more treatable than others as well. Prostate, thyroid, testicular, certain melanomas, etc. Vs. those which are extremely difficult to treat: Pancreatic, liver, esophageal. That is, to some extent, a worldwide phenomenon. It is not, however, correlative to geographical incidence.
Which cancers occur where is an interesting study which ties into health care on the preventive side of the equation. Types of cancers are not evenly distributed worldwide. For instance, while Japan has a higher smoking rate than we do, it has a lower incidence of lung cancer. OTOH, they have a higher incidence of stomach cancer than we do. It merits studying why.
My larger point in not comparing incidence and survivability is that the US has a proclivity, both within the field and within the media which reports on it, for pointing to treatment as a measure of success while ignoring cause, especially when it comes to cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Perhaps it's because it may be detrimental to other aspects of capitalism to point those fingers.
That is a much larger reflection, not on our lifestyles, but on the structure of our society as a whole. For example, trans-fat is a known contributor to heart disease. How is it not only not banned, but the FDA allows less than .5 grams/serving to be reported as 0g/serving on the Nutrition "Facts" list? How can you possibly make a lifestyle choice when the truth is legally allowed to be udulterated?

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3245183
Comparing what they have and what we have is pretty much useless. The Government owns a lot of the hospitals and clinics there which partially explains their tax rates.
Of Germany's 2,030ish hospitals, 790 are publicly owned. I can't find a statistic for how that compares to here.
Not saying that is a bad idea but where does our government get the funds to start buying up the hospitals here? Do you think there is a politician with the guts to propose bumping our current income rates plus adding a national sales tax to support that system?
Same place they get the funds to rescue failing banks, investment companies, airlines, auto manufacturers and, soon to be, health insurance companies...
Not saying that's a good idea, just saying that who we rescue is a matter of choice. If we rescue only the rich, how long can they remain so?
Rather a short-sighted solution. A healthy population is, long term, more beneficial to a society than a sick one.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3246062
Of Germany's 2,030ish hospitals, 790 are publicly owned. I have no idea how that compares to here.Same place they get the funds to rescue failing banks, investment companies, airlines, auto manufacturers and, soon to be, health insurance companies...
Not saying that's a good idea, just saying that who we rescue is a matter of choice. If we rescue only the rich, how long can they remain so?
Rather a short-sighted solution. A healthy population is more beneficial to a society than a sick one.
You'd have a point, if there was a single corporation that owned a lot of hospitals and was on the verge of financial Armageddon.
By bed count 54% of Germany's hospitals are government owned.
We are basically hosed. This bill passes and most people who pay for their health care now get bent over. They don't pass it and those who really want and need coverage get bent. I dunno. If the Democrats use the nuclear option there might be a big enough turnover in seats this fall that next year Obama can be dragged kicking and screaming into some meaningful tweaks to fix this piece of crap, much like what happened with Clinton and Welfare reform in the 90's.

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3246074
You'd have a point, if there was a single corporation that owned a lot of hospitals and was on the verge of financial Armageddon.
By bed count 54% of Germany's hospitals are government owned.
We are basically hosed. This bill passes and most people who pay for their health care now get bent over. They don't pass it and those who really want and need coverage get bent. I dunno. If the Democrats use the nuclear option there might be a big enough turnover in seats this fall that next year Obama can be dragged kicking and screaming into some meaningful tweaks to fix this piece of crap, much like what happened with Clinton and Welfare reform in the 90's.
Where is the logic though for the dems passing a bill that will get them booted from office? These people crave power above all else and I can't imagine them committing political suicide enmasse.
Fishtaco (now making less per year for the first time in his life due to my health care going up.)

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3246105
Where is the logic though for the dems passing a bill that will get them booted from office? These people crave power above all else and I can't imagine them committing political suicide enmasse.
Fishtaco (now making less per year for the first time in his life due to my health care going up.)
Read the polls, people are seriously opposed to this particular bill and if the Dems use reconciliation to pass it the Republicans are going to be able to use the words of the President, Vice President and numerous nationally known Democrats voicing their outrage at the Republican threat to use it to push through court nominees. The commercials will be devastating.
Just after the election I predicted the Democrats would let arrogance get the best of them. When they lose Ted Kennedy's seat to a guy who was beating them over the head with health care and they are still pushing it I would say I made a pretty good call.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3246045
I made no mention of cancer survivability. What I said was "per capita rates of specific cancers" (which the US leads in a number of cases.)
Here's why:
Survivability and incidence are two different things. Survivablility is largely correlative to the type of cancer in question along with the region where one receives treatment (i.e. Eritrea is a worse place than Belgium to receive treatment - but Belgium is roughly equivalent to the US.) Some cancers are more treatable than others as well. Prostate, thyroid, testicular, certain melanomas, etc. Vs. those which are extremely difficult to treat: Pancreatic, liver, esophageal. That is, to some extent, a worldwide phenomenon. It is not, however, correlative to geographical incidence.
Which cancers occur where is an interesting study which ties into health care on the preventive side of the equation. Types of cancers are not evenly distributed worldwide. For instance, while Japan has a higher smoking rate than we do, it has a lower incidence of lung cancer. OTOH, they have a higher incidence of stomach cancer than we do. It merits studying why.
My larger point in not comparing incidence and survivability is that the US has a proclivity, both within the field and within the media which reports on it, for pointing to treatment as a measure of success while ignoring cause, especially when it comes to cancer, heart disease and diabetes. Perhaps it's because it may be detrimental to other aspects of capitalism to point those fingers.
That is a much larger reflection, not on our lifestyles, but on the structure of our society as a whole. For example, trans-fat is a known contributor to heart disease. How is it not only not banned, but the FDA allows less than .5 grams/serving to be reported as 0g/serving on the Nutrition "Facts" list? How can you possibly make a lifestyle choice when the truth is legally allowed to be udulterated?
yawn, First off read what I just quoted from you below. Which imo is the only stat I would be willing to concede as usable for a correlation. But only if the statistician setup a study that compared cancer rates of specific cancers.
Secondly, I have no idea your medical background. (now this is hearsay, but I've heard this from multiple trusted friends and family who work in medicine around the country) But the people who they care for generally bring their problems on themselves. Either by refusing to change their lifestyle because of their diabetes, or history of heart problems. The vast majority of the patients they care for aren't their for some odd reason, but because they don't care for themselves. Either drink a case of beer every night, then wonder why their heart fails, or their liver (my wife's uncle just got sent home to finish it out) He's not dieing because of lack of insurance, but because he was a drunk for most of his life. And his liver can't handle it anymore.
As for cancer rates, until someone can show me, (and I haven't read anything even close to a good argument) that there isn't a correlation between the availability of doctors and the increased diagnoses of cancers. Then the we have a higher per capita of cancer than country X. I would go as far as to say, that a higher diagnosis of cancer could be a reflection of the availability and quality of health care, because our doctors catch the cancer where country's x doctor does not. Or never even looks at the patient. Considering that in this country people are running around scared of cell phones, (and California is especially dangerous since everything causes cancer in California) coupled with the fact that I can make a phone call this morning, pay 70 bucks cash and get a preliminary diagnoses with cancer this afternoon. I don't find it the least bit surprising that we have higher incidence rates of whatever malady that may or may not ail the person.
As for the untruthful labels, soon transfats will be a fear of the past and a new danger maybe coffee again or eggs will be the new tool of fear to be used to scare the masses. Oh wait it is salt now. The stuff we use for conductivity to make our heart beat...
Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3245577
The service is in no way comparable. The German, aka Bismarck, system (which is not relegated to Germany, it is just so named because they invented it) is superior to ours in rates of: Life expectancy, infant mortality, cancer survivability, incidence of heart disease, per capita rates of specific cancers and per capita treatment costs.
Where you said survivability.

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3246397
yawn, First off read what I just quoted from you below. Which imo is the only stat I would be willing to concede as usable for a correlation. But only if the statistician setup a study that compared cancer rates of specific cancers.
Precisely my point. You argued survivability when I wasn't, and then pointed to a different debate situation where I did and attempted to equate the two statements. Non-sequitur.
Secondly, I have no idea your medical background. (now this is hearsay, but I've heard this from multiple trusted friends and family who work in medicine around the country) But the people who they care for generally bring their problems on themselves. Either by refusing to change their lifestyle because of their diabetes, or history of heart problems. The vast majority of the patients they care for aren't their for some odd reason, but because they don't care for themselves. Either drink a case of beer every night, then wonder why their heart fails, or their liver (my wife's uncle just got sent home to finish it out) He's not dieing because of lack of insurance, but because he was a drunk for most of his life. And his liver can't handle it anymore.
As for cancer rates, until someone can show me, (and I haven't read anything even close to a good argument) that there isn't a correlation between the availability of doctors and the increased diagnoses of cancers. Then the we have a higher per capita of cancer than country X. I would go as far as to say, that a higher diagnosis of cancer could be a reflection of the availability and quality of health care, because our doctors catch the cancer where country's x doctor does not. Or never even looks at the patient. Considering that in this country people are running around scared of cell phones, (and California is especially dangerous since everything causes cancer in California) coupled with the fact that I can make a phone call this morning, pay 70 bucks cash and get a preliminary diagnoses with cancer this afternoon. I don't find it the least bit surprising that we have higher incidence rates of whatever malady that may or may not ail the person.
My medical background is as a survivor (so far) of cancer. Out of selfish interests, I've done a fair amount of study regarding cancers, both as a whole, and mine specifically, since my diagnosis. I'm no oncologist, but I'm not a hobbyist either.
There are, from where I sit, truisms in your overall statement. There are also some gross assumptions. For example: 1) If something causes Cancer in Ca, it probably does in TX as well. 2) Your $70 test assumes that an indicative test exists in the first place. For some cancers there are tests. For some there are not. 3) My argument of incidence is based upon a comparitive analysis of nations w/ equivalent levels of medical service. Hence my statement comparing Eritrea to Belgium to the US. 4) There are cancers, mine included, which have no known cause. (Care to tell me how to have prevented it?) By the same token, those cancers also have uneven worldwide distribution. Leads me to believe that there are probably environmental factors in their cause. The link simply hasn't been found yet.
div class="bbcode_container">
As for the untruthful labels, soon transfats will be a fear of the past and a new danger maybe coffee again or eggs will be the new tool of fear to be used to scare the masses. Oh wait it is salt now. The stuff we use for conductivity to make our heart beat...
In this case: Both a non-sequitur and a red herring:
The first argument is what's permissible not to be listed on nutritional labels. That's a legal argument.
The second regards whether or not a particular listing is relevant or important to nutrition as a whole. That's a scientific argument.
"The stuff we use for conductivity..."? Irrelevant to either debate. E.g. Na w/o K is useless. That's an irrelevant statement as well.
Now, if you want to debate that both Sodium and Potassium are necessary for cellular metabolism yet there's no minimum requirement for Sodium, and Potassium isn't mentioned in the black recatangle at all, then there's something to discuss w/ regard to points 1 and 2.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3246722
Precisely my point. You argued survivability when I wasn't, and then pointed to a different debate situation where I did and attempted to equate the two statements. Non-sequitur.
My medical background is as a survivor (so far) of cancer. Out of selfish interests, I've done a fair amount of study regarding cancers, both as a whole, and mine specifically, since my diagnosis. I'm no oncologist, but I'm not a hobbyist either.
There are, from where I sit, truisms in your overall statement. There are also some gross assumptions. For example: 1) If something causes Cancer in Ca, it probably does in TX as well. 2) Your $70 test assumes that an indicative test exists in the first place. For some cancers there are tests. For some there are not. 3) My argument of incidence is based upon a comparitive analysis of nations w/ equivalent levels of medical service. Hence my statement comparing Eritrea to Belgium to the US. 4) There are cancers, mine included, which have no known cause. (Care to tell me how to have prevented it?) By the same token, those cancers also have uneven worldwide distribution. Leads me to believe that there are probably environmental factors in their cause. The link simply hasn't been found yet.
In this case: Both a non-sequitur and a red herring:
The first argument is what's permissible not to be listed on nutritional labels. That's a legal argument.
The second regards whether or not a particular listing is relevant or important to nutrition as a whole. That's a scientific argument.
"The stuff we use for conductivity..."? Irrelevant to either debate. E.g. Na w/o K is useless. That's an irrelevant statement as well.
Now, if you want to debate that both Sodium and Potassium are necessary for cellular metabolism yet there's no minimum requirement for Sodium, and Potassium isn't mentioned in the black recatangle at all, then there's something to discuss w/ regard to points 1 and 2.
I'm simply pointing out how easy it is to get access to medical services... As for the red herring, you can call it whatever you want, and I do realise that people look down on this style of argument, but imo fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Or the boy who cried wolf. I'm just cynical when it comes to what they say is bad or good for me, because quite frankly one day they say one thing the next day someone else says something opposite... Secondly you've gotta round off somewhere, then you have to take into consideration the accuruacy of whatever test it is... Thirdly it reminds me of a friend who eats fruit loops and thinks they're good for you because it has 100% of vitamin C or something.
As for the discussion at hand. I'm in no way saying all cancer is self inflicted. Unless I missread you post, you were arguing that the bismark system was better and listed off a bunch of different stats i should look at. To which I replied, I don't buy that those different stats would be a good indication of the quality or lack of quality in comparison of a certain system. One of the things you listed were cancer rates. And this is where I said that I don't think hospitals have anything to do with person x catching cancer...

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3246832
I'm simply pointing out how easy it is to get access to medical services... As for the red herring, you can call it whatever you want, and I do realise that people look down on this style of argument, but imo fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. Or the boy who cried wolf. I'm just cynical when it comes to what they say is bad or good for me, because quite frankly one day they say one thing the next day someone else says something opposite... Secondly you've gotta round off somewhere, then you have to take into consideration the accuruacy of whatever test it is... Thirdly it reminds me of a friend who eats fruit loops and thinks they're good for you because it has 100% of vitamin C or something.
Absolutely agreed on all counts. I am cynical as well. Oatmeal good, maybe not, coffee bad, maybe not. Nutritionism is a particularly inexact discipline.
OTOH, one thing we have determined is that trans-fats and hydrogenated oils (both of which are industrially and artificially produced) are significant contributors to heart disease.
As for the discussion at hand. I'm in no way saying all cancer is self inflicted. Unless I missread you post, you were arguing that the bismark system was better and listed off a bunch of different stats i should look at. To which I replied, I don't buy that those different stats would be a good indication of the quality or lack of quality in comparison of a certain system. One of the things you listed were cancer rates. And this is where I said that I don't think hospitals have anything to do with person x catching cancer...
Again, I agree. There is a larger picture that has to be taken into consideration. Among the variables are: Incidence of cancers, heart disease and diabetes; rates of cure of each of those; known or implied causes; cost per capita of either prevention or cure, etc. (Oh krikey, I just used semi-colons...)

In each of those situations, however, it is arguable whether the US is better at treatment than the "competition" and it is arguable as well, at what comparitive overall societal cost.
It is also worth considering whether an Oz. of prevention is really worth a Lb. of cure. E.g. Wonder Bread helps "build a body 8 ways™." Trouble is, unbleached wheat flour contains 23 naturally occuring vitamins, minerals and amino acids, all of which the bleaching process removes. Almost 1/3 of them are then replaced with chemically manufactured substitutes, most of which are artificially produced right hand, vs. naturally occuring left hand, molecules. Cyclamates and saccharides are generally mirror images of naturally occuring molecules. The tongue (sorta) can't tell the difference, but the body has no idea how to process it. Good thing, or bad thing?