http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65M0SU20100623

Quote:U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study

Quote:(Reuters) - Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday.

The United States ranked last when compared to six other countries -- Britain, Canada, Germany, Netherlands, Australia and New Zealand, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

Quote:"On measures of quality the United States ranked 6th out of seven countries," the group said in a statement.

Quote:Overall Britain, whose nationalized healthcare system was widely derided by opponents of U.S. healthcare reform, ranks first

And for those who think socialized health care is too expensive:

Quote:In 2007, health spending was $7,290 per person in the United States, more than double that of any other country in the survey.

Australians spent $3,357, Canadians $3,895, Germans $3,588, the Netherlands $3,837 and Britons spent $2,992 per capita on health in 2007.

You forgot to mention how much the Australians, Germans, Canadians, Britons and the Dutch pay for American health care when they get tired of waiting in line to get it in their own respective countries. Canada has figured out that you can cut health care costs by making those afflicted with cancer wait six to nine months before receiving chemotherapy treatment. Those who can not live that long bring down the overall costs.

Americans also pay more for new domestic cars than do residents of China and India. It has something to do with higher standards.

Democrats are always complaining about how schools in richer neighborhoods are getting so much more money than schools in poorer neighborhoods. It would seem to me that the schools in the poorer neighborhoods should be bragging about how they have managed to cut costs so well. The successful should emulate the poor.

Higher standards? The quality of our health care is worse, not just the cost. Stop living in a bubble. We pay more, but we get less. That's the whole point.

Your examples are ridiculous, it's not at all like that. Rich kids going to a nice private school are almost assuredly getting a much better education than my public school education. While I'm not a car expert by any means, I'd guarantee that those who buy a Mercedes Benz or BMW are getting a better car than those of us who buy economical cars (myself included in that second group).

Our health care is like paying 50K for a Ford Taurus, while other countries pay 20K for a BMW sports car.

And no surprise to you George I'm sure, as I think you are smart enough to know how people react to change so this isn't news to you, but American's have already started to come around on the bill. Much quicker than I anticipated though to be honest, so I guess I was wrong too (assumed two years, so I was way off).

None the less, as you well know as an educated man, once people get over the general fear and dislike of any major change, they'll often embrace it when they realize how it benefits them.

(05-25-2010 08:24 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Since 63% of the American people want the health care "reform" bill repealed, it sounds like Klake et al. are with the the majority of the country.

Not anymore..
http://www.gallup.com/poll/140981/verdic...vided.aspx

And for your quote about hating my country in the other thread.. (you know, because I actually happen to support the president of this country and want to improve it, instead of rail against our leadership, I'm the one who hates our country.) I'll refer you to the same link I sent Kevin to:

http://www.psych-it.com.au/Psychlopedia/...asp?id=201

Quote:Quote:Collective narcissism, like individual narcissism, relates to positive explicit rather than implicit values of themselves (see Optimal self esteem). For example, in one of the studies conducted by de Zavala, Cichocka, Eidelson, and Jayawickreme (2009), participants answered questions about collective narcissism in which the group was their nation. Participants who reported an elevated level of collective narcissism also maintained their nation was exemplary, as gauged by a measure of explicit collective self esteem. Nevertheless, these participants did not report a high implicit collective self esteem, as measured by the implicit association test).

These findings are consistent with the mask model of narcissism (Bosson, Lakey, Campbell, Zeigler-Hill, Jordan, & Kernis, 2008). According to this model, individuals seek evidence of an inflated image of themselves--or their collectives--to mask feelings of shame and doubt. Hence, they often report a high explicit, but not implicit, self esteem.

Just because I can see the faults in something, or want to improve it does not mean I don't love my country. I'm sorry you can't wrap your head around that idea.

(06-24-2010 08:32 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(05-25-2010 08:24 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Since 63% of the American people want the health care "reform" bill repealed, it sounds like Klake et al. are with the the majority of the country.

Not anymore..
http://www.gallup.com/poll/140981/verdic...vided.aspx

Why the vitriol? No need to be so bitter.

Regarding the Gallup poll, to be fair, the below is from their article.

"The 49% of Americans who today say passage of healthcare reform was a good thing, compared with 46% calling it a bad thing, is a bit more positive than the two prior readings in which the slight plurality called it a bad thing. However, the four percentage-point increase since April in favorability toward the law, from 45% to 49%, is not statistically significant."

And, Rasumssen still has 55% of the people want it repealed. That is a much stronger sentiment than people just not liking it. And, 80% of people are happy with their current coverage, coverage that, under law, they can't keep.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...h_care_law


People realize the bill is bankrupt, and it will negatively affect their coverage. They see that Canada is looking at how to transition back to at least a partial private system because the spending has blown past projections and is not affordable. People see that costs are going up again this year, past what what it would have, if this law was not passed. The law has added costs via premiums and taxes.

From Canadian news sources:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/

Access to a waiting list is not access to health care.

A waiting list is far better than not getting care at all.

And as I mentioned previously, I thought it would take at least two years to get this kind of response, so to already be turning the corner says something.

And why would I not be bitter, you've accused me of hating my own country for supporting my president's views. That's a pretty awful thing to say to someone.

(06-24-2010 09:02 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(06-24-2010 08:32 AM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  

(05-25-2010 08:24 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  Since 63% of the American people want the health care "reform" bill repealed, it sounds like Klake et al. are with the the majority of the country.

Not anymore..
http://www.gallup.com/poll/140981/verdic...vided.aspx

Why the vitriol? No need to be so bitter.

Regarding the Gallup poll, to be fair, the below is from their article.

"The 49% of Americans who today say passage of healthcare reform was a good thing, compared with 46% calling it a bad thing, is a bit more positive than the two prior readings in which the slight plurality called it a bad thing. However, the four percentage-point increase since April in favorability toward the law, from 45% to 49%, is not statistically significant."

And, Rasumssen still has 55% of the people want it repealed. That is a much stronger sentiment than people just not liking it. And, 80% of people are happy with their current coverage, coverage that, under law, they can't keep.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...h_care_law


People realize the bill is bankrupt, and it will negatively affect their coverage. They see that Canada is looking at how to transition back to at least a partial private system because the spending has blown past projections and is not affordable. People see that costs are going up again this year, past what what it would have, if this law was not passed. The law has added costs via premiums and taxes.

From Canadian news sources:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare/

Access to a waiting list is not access to health care.

Rasmussen?

All that Rasmussen poll does is prove my point, the tide is changing, people are beginning to understand how it will effect their lives and the nonsensical death-panel scare campaign has shown to be nothing more than that.

It was at 63% just a month ago, it's down 8% since Mid-May. Which is really quite a bit faster than I'd ever have imagined, I thought people would actually have to start seeing the benefits of the policy in action before they came around to it. Definitely underestimated people, and I'll happily admit that. Glad to see I was wrong.

Just not a good time for the GOP.. hate the democrats, but their own party expanded the government too, they just didn't try to pay for it.

Quote:Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republican voters continue to believe that GOP members of Congress have lost touch with the party base throughout the nation over the past several years. By contrast, 61% of Democratic voters think their representatives in Congress have done a good job of representing Democratic values over the past several years.

(06-24-2010 12:58 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  All that Rasmussen poll does is prove my point, the tide is changing, people are beginning to understand how it will effect their lives and the nonsensical death-panel scare campaign has shown to be nothing more than that.
It was at 63% just a month ago, it's down 8% since Mid-May. Which is really quite a bit faster than I'd ever have imagined, I thought people would actually have to start seeing the benefits of the policy in action before they came around to it. Definitely underestimated people, and I'll happily admit that. Glad to see I was wrong.

Just not a good time for the GOP.. hate the democrats, but their own party expanded the government too, they just didn't try to pay for it.

Quote:Seventy-two percent (72%) of Republican voters continue to believe that GOP members of Congress have lost touch with the party base throughout the nation over the past several years. By contrast, 61% of Democratic voters think their representatives in Congress have done a good job of representing Democratic values over the past several years.

Nonsense?

Section 1233 of health care bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c1...:e2116051:

Advanced Care Planning

Quote:Advance Care Planning Consultation

`(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the term `advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years. Such consultation shall include the following:

`(A) An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.

`(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.

`© An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.

`(D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965).

`(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title.

`(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include--

`(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual's family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;

`(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and

`(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).



(1) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE- Section 1848(k)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-4(k)(2)) is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

`(E) Physician'S QUALITY REPORTING INITIATIVE-

`(i) IN GENERAL- For purposes of reporting data on quality measures for covered professional services furnished during 2011 and any subsequent year, to the extent that measures are available, the Secretary shall include quality measures on end of life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted or endorsed by a consensus-based organization , if appropriate. Such measures shall measure both the creation of and adherence to orders for life-sustaining treatment.

It's bad enough when progressives want to dictate how you live your life, now they want to decide how you will die too.

Yes.. a consultation.

Giving people information and telling them about their option, oh the horror of it all.

(06-24-2010 04:00 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Yes.. a consultation.

Giving people information and telling them about their option, oh the horror of it all.

He will never get it.

(06-25-2010 12:51 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-24-2010 04:00 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Yes.. a consultation.

Giving people information and telling them about their option, oh the horror of it all.

He will never get it.

I'm from the government. I am here to help you.

Of course! The consensus-based organization (or panel) is not going to be showing any bias when it comes to end of life services. They are not going to be concerned with "cutting costs" in the health care industry.

Just like Planned Parenthood shows no bias when it comes to consulting young women about "reproductive choices", expecially in the African American community.

http://blog.adw.org/2010/06/the-ugly-ori...ode-in-on/

They are just giving advice, because all the Government wants to do is help people. Some people get more "help" than others.

I'm not going to lie, I can understand some arguments for universal healthcare, even though I don't agree with it, as it is too tough to weed out the poor from the lazy.

However, what I don't understand is how anyone at this time would want their healthcare run by a government that is flushing this country down the drain. This government (and I'm not saying this administration, but rather the whole government for a while now) has run the national debt over 13 million thus far and it just does nothing but increase. Unemployment rates continue to rise, no matter how many temporary census jobs were created. The was on Iraq seems like it will never end. Government has mishandled environmental disasters in the past two administrations, etc. The list goes on.

Why oh why should I trust this government to give me and my family proper healthcare? I think until we fix the government (ie vote all the crooks out, get out of debt, win the war, etc...) we shouldn't focus on things like this.

(06-25-2010 08:15 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(06-25-2010 12:51 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-24-2010 04:00 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Yes.. a consultation.

Giving people information and telling them about their option, oh the horror of it all.

He will never get it.

I'm from the government. I am here to help you.

Of course! The consensus-based organization (or panel) is not going to be showing any bias when it comes to end of life services. They are not going to be concerned with "cutting costs" in the health care industry.

Just like Planned Parenthood shows no bias when it comes to consulting young women about "reproductive choices", expecially in the African American community.

http://blog.adw.org/2010/06/the-ugly-ori...ode-in-on/

They are just giving advice, because all the Government wants to do is help people. Some people get more "help" than others.

Just walk into the jewel in my home neighborhood on the southside of chicago (this has become a mainly hispanic neighborhood since the mid 90's, and yeah, its relatively poor). Everyone in front of you is paying with their food stamps and link cards, while they are texting on their iphones with (I'm assuming) the unlimited texting plan, spending probably over a 100 a month on their service plan. Then, when you walk out, they drive off in their brand new escalade with rims that cost more than my car. Not to mention I have to use a ****** phone with terrible service.

My family and I have worked hard our whole lives, yet we never got anywhere near the amount of welfare these people have gotten, mainly because we actually worked hard.

Don't get me wrong, there are good, hard working people who are in need of aid. But people don't realize how badly the system is broke and how badly these people receiving insane amounts of welfare abuse the system.

(06-25-2010 08:15 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(06-25-2010 12:51 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(06-24-2010 04:00 PM)HuskieFan84 Wrote:  Yes.. a consultation.

Giving people information and telling them about their option, oh the horror of it all.

He will never get it.

I'm from the government. I am here to help you.

Of course! The consensus-based organization (or panel) is not going to be showing any bias when it comes to end of life services. They are not going to be concerned with "cutting costs" in the health care industry.

Just like Planned Parenthood shows no bias when it comes to consulting young women about "reproductive choices", expecially in the African American community.

http://blog.adw.org/2010/06/the-ugly-ori...ode-in-on/

They are just giving advice, because all the Government wants to do is help people. Some people get more "help" than others.

I believe you are confusing 2 different areas of the bill and lumping them all in one. There is no government panel determining your end of life choice. It is a consultation with your doctor and possibly family.

(06-25-2010 10:42 AM)Sir Huskie Wrote:  I'm not going to lie, I can understand some arguments for universal healthcare, even though I don't agree with it, as it is too tough to weed out the poor from the lazy.

However, what I don't understand is how anyone at this time would want their healthcare run by a government that is flushing this country down the drain. This government (and I'm not saying this administration, but rather the whole government for a while now) has run the national debt over 13 million thus far and it just does nothing but increase. Unemployment rates continue to rise, no matter how many temporary census jobs were created. The was on Iraq seems like it will never end. Government has mishandled environmental disasters in the past two administrations, etc. The list goes on.

Why oh why should I trust this government to give me and my family proper healthcare? I think until we fix the government (ie vote all the crooks out, get out of debt, win the war, etc...) we shouldn't focus on things like this.

It is mostly your Republican party that has run up the deficit. Check out the deficit under Raygun, Check it out under both Bush's.

Hey, question, when you are in massive debt, what do you do? I don't understand the need for the blame game (which Obama and democrats love to do) when what we are doing now is retarded.

Again, look at the depression in 1920 and how we got out of that.

(06-25-2010 11:25 AM)Sir Huskie Wrote:  Hey, question, when you are in massive debt, what do you do? I don't understand the need for the blame game (which Obama and democrats love to do) when what we are doing now is retarded.

Again, look at the depression in 1920 and how we got out of that.

The US got out of the depression by Roosevelt spending what $ was needed to put people to work. The war started and the economy picked up but w/o the WPA, CCC and other organizations like it that were funded by Fed Gov't $; this country would have had a revolution in the streets.

(06-25-2010 07:37 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(06-25-2010 11:25 AM)Sir Huskie Wrote:  Hey, question, when you are in massive debt, what do you do? I don't understand the need for the blame game (which Obama and democrats love to do) when what we are doing now is retarded.

Again, look at the depression in 1920 and how we got out of that.

The US got out of the depression by Roosevelt spending what $ was needed to put people to work. The war started and the economy picked up but w/o the WPA, CCC and other organizations like it that were funded by Fed Gov't $; this country would have had a revolution in the streets.

I'm not talking about the "great depression", I'm talking about the depression in 1920, which possibly started out even worse than the great depression. Look up how we got out of that.

FDR was a communist prick. The country had millions of people starving, but he takes over the farms, and has them burn crops amongst more crops? Where is the "justice" in that?

Yeah, he wanted to raise the price of food... but why not do what happened in 1920? How was 1920 any different than 1929?

(06-25-2010 07:37 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(06-25-2010 11:25 AM)Sir Huskie Wrote:  Hey, question, when you are in massive debt, what do you do? I don't understand the need for the blame game (which Obama and democrats love to do) when what we are doing now is retarded.

Again, look at the depression in 1920 and how we got out of that.

The US got out of the depression by Roosevelt spending what $ was needed to put people to work. The war started and the economy picked up but w/o the WPA, CCC and other organizations like it that were funded by Fed Gov't $; this country would have had a revolution in the streets.

Wrong! Spending your way out of a recession or a depression is like trying to drink yourself sober. Even the Europeans are suggesting Obama cut back on the deficit spending. That's like Robert Downey Jr. telling you to cut back on the drinking.

Roosevelt prolonged the depression. Neither Roosevelt or the depression should have lasted three terms.

As long as we have a bunch of Keynsians running the economy, it is going to take a long time for the economy to recover from this rampant spending. Next year, the Bush tax cuts expire, and that will lead to even more money flowing out of the private sector and into the Government to get wasted.

(06-28-2010 09:54 AM)Huskie_Jon Wrote:  

(06-25-2010 07:37 PM)onlinepole Wrote:  

(06-25-2010 11:25 AM)Sir Huskie Wrote:  Hey, question, when you are in massive debt, what do you do? I don't understand the need for the blame game (which Obama and democrats love to do) when what we are doing now is retarded.

Again, look at the depression in 1920 and how we got out of that.

The US got out of the depression by Roosevelt spending what $ was needed to put people to work. The war started and the economy picked up but w/o the WPA, CCC and other organizations like it that were funded by Fed Gov't $; this country would have had a revolution in the streets.

Wrong! Spending your way out of a recession or a depression is like trying to drink yourself sober. Even the Europeans are suggesting Obama cut back on the deficit spending. That's like Robert Downey Jr. telling you to cut back on the drinking.

Roosevelt prolonged the depression. Neither Roosevelt or the depression should have lasted three terms.

As long as we have a bunch of Keynsians running the economy, it is going to take a long time for the economy to recover from this rampant spending. Next year, the Bush tax cuts expire, and that will lead to even more money flowing out of the private sector and into the Government to get wasted.

Of course your brilliant idea is to give tax breaks for the rich and big business. You believe this would somehow grow an economy when the world economy is in the toilet. Please explain to me how or why a company will expand or hire if nobody is buying their products because they don't have a job or any extra income to buy their product?