Aren't more than 18,000 people killed every year by drunk drivers?

How many people in other countries die because bureaucrats decide to ration care, and they can't get the treatment they need? I'm not aware of any such statistics.

Of the uninsured

"About 18 million of the uninsured make more than 50,000 a year and almost 10 million have yearly incomes over 75,000. More than 10 million aren't U.S. citizens. And as many as 14 million already are eligible for government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP but haven't signed up."

http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/962/nationalized-health-care-threatens-americas-future

Does it really make sense to nationalize 1/6 of the economy in order to help 20 million people who are either illegal aliens or have household incomes over 75,000?

Quoted from "Wino"
Aren't more than 18,000 people killed every year by drunk drivers? How many people in other countries die because bureaucrats decide to ration care, and they can't get the treatment they need? I'm not aware of any such statistics. Of the uninsured "About 18 million of the uninsured make more than 50,000 a year and almost 10 million have yearly incomes over 75,000. More than 10 million aren't U.S. citizens. And as many as 14 million already are eligible for government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP but haven't signed up." http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/962/nationalized-health-care-threatens-americas-future Does it really make sense to nationalize 1/6 of the economy in order to help 20 million people who are either illegal aliens or have household incomes over 75,000?

Quote
According to the Institute of Medicine, "lack of health insurance causes roughly 18,000 unnecessary deaths every year in the United States. Although America leads the world in spending on health care, it is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage." Insuring America's Health: Principles and Recommendations, Institute of Medicine, January 2004. http://www.iom.edu/?id=19175

Quote
The amount of uninsured is rising every year, as premiums continue to skyrocket and wages stagnate. From 2004 to 2005 the number of uninsured rose 1.3 million, and rose up nearly 6 million from 2001-2005. Leighton Ku, "Census Revises Estimates Of The Number Of Uninsured People," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 5, 2007 http://www.cbpp.org/4-5-07health.htm

Quoted from "nugby"
The link you supplied states that in comparing equivalent population groups in the UK and the US, the US population is less healthy. I don't see anything in the abstract to support the claim in the Baltimore paper, and I don't see that the paper supplied a link to verifiable data. This is just more hyperbole to scare people.

Quote
"The US population in late middle age is less healthy than the equivalent British population for diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, lung disease, and cancer. Within each country, there exists a pronounced negative socioeconomic status (SES) gradient with self-reported disease so that health disparities are largest at the bottom of the education or income variants of the SES hierarchy. This conclusion is generally robust to control for a standard set of behavioral risk factors, including smoking, overweight, obesity, and alcohol drinking, which explain very little of these health differences Level differences between countries are sufficiently large that individuals in the top of the education and income strata in the United States have comparable rates of diabetes and heart disease as those in the bottom of the income and education strata in England." (See also Table 1 - for example, prevalence of diabetes among high-income Americans is 8.2 per thousand, while it's 7.3 among low-income Brits.) Banks, Marmot et al., "Disease and Disadvantage in the United States and in England," Journal of the American Medical Association, 2006;295:2037-2045.

Quoted from "nugby"
I want to be clear on one thing. I'm not denying that we Americans are less healthy than comparable groups in western democracies. I just don't believe that social medicine will change that. But it will give big brother control over one more aspect of our lives. Didn't someone write earlier that the Taiwan government fines health abusers? If eight years of Bush didn't teach us anything else, it should have taught us that a powerful government will stretch and mold any possible law to allow it to do whatever it wants. Head in the clouds plans to give everyone free medicine will ultimately result in a medical police corps.

Appeal to Fear

Your original language said

Quote
the 2006 WHO survey demonstrated that the poorest individuals in the UK had higher life expectancies, than the wealthiest individuals living in the US

The later info you posted does not address that. It just says that there are higher rates of certain diseases in different groups. Nor is the data from the WHO 2006 survey as you stated. It is from a survey of surveys. It also specifically makes no conclusion as to whether the differences are attributable to the healthcare available to the surveyed populations.

What all of you who want single payer can look forward to:

http://townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2009/07/01/better_health_care

Quoted from "Wino"
What all of you who want single payer can look forward to: http://townhall.com/Columnists/JohnStossel/2009/07/01/better_health_care

Any website that opens with a popup ad to a Glenn Beck book isn't impartial.

Quoted from "nugby"
Capt Morgan wrote:

Quote
How bout you offer some incite or a suggestion on how to address the uninsured in America while also addressing the existing cost of health care and the projected cost?

As I've said in other threads, I believe one of the biggest reasons for high cost in any applicable area (college tuition being one recently discussed, the real estate boom/bust is another) is the government throwing money at a problem. All it does is create more opportunities to spend it. I believe, without meaning to belittle any other opinion, that providing universal insurance, or universal health care, will drive costs up, not down. Do I have a government phobia? I don't think so. Perhaps a healthy suspicion, which anyone who lived through the last eight years should have. Do I have an answer for people who are sick and can't get care? No, I don't. But that doesn't mean that anyone who has an answer must be right. I think you are wrong. You think I'm arguing for the sake of arguing? I'm not. I like to be convinced of something that I don't initially agree with. But your argument started out by citing the WHO as the source of data upon which your opinion is based. Then you couldn't produce that data. But since your opinion is set, you're comfortable accepting fuzzy data and unattributable news clips in place of the data you thought supported your opinion. That won't convince me and it shouldn't convince any rational person. I am enjoying this debate and I hope it doesn't get personal. I respect your opinion and the way you state it. I just don't agree with it. This thread has already gone much longer than most without name calling. I hope it stays that way.

How would UHC drive up costs?

The issue is that the cost of health care is set by private insurance, without regulation and without oversight. If you are for a competitive market, why would a public option be so bad? You aren't taking away private health care, you are just adding additional competition, while also covering people that have no health care. Why is that so wrong?

Obama hugs cancer patient, pitches care overhaul

Quoted from "mrz"

Quoted from "nugby"
Capt Morgan wrote: As I've said in other threads, I believe one of the biggest reasons for high cost in any applicable area (college tuition being one recently discussed, the real estate boom/bust is another) is the government throwing money at a problem. All it does is create more opportunities to spend it. I believe, without meaning to belittle any other opinion, that providing universal insurance, or universal health care, will drive costs up, not down.

I didn't say that.

Quoted from "Capt Morgan"

Quoted from "nugby"
Capt Morgan wrote:

Quote
How bout you offer some incite or a suggestion on how to address the uninsured in America while also addressing the existing cost of health care and the projected cost?

As I've said in other threads, I believe one of the biggest reasons for high cost in any applicable area (college tuition being one recently discussed, the real estate boom/bust is another) is the government throwing money at a problem. All it does is create more opportunities to spend it. I believe, without meaning to belittle any other opinion, that providing universal insurance, or universal health care, will drive costs up, not down. Do I have a government phobia? I don't think so. Perhaps a healthy suspicion, which anyone who lived through the last eight years should have. Do I have an answer for people who are sick and can't get care? No, I don't. But that doesn't mean that anyone who has an answer must be right. I think you are wrong. You think I'm arguing for the sake of arguing? I'm not. I like to be convinced of something that I don't initially agree with. But your argument started out by citing the WHO as the source of data upon which your opinion is based. Then you couldn't produce that data. But since your opinion is set, you're comfortable accepting fuzzy data and unattributable news clips in place of the data you thought supported your opinion. That won't convince me and it shouldn't convince any rational person. I am enjoying this debate and I hope it doesn't get personal. I respect your opinion and the way you state it. I just don't agree with it. This thread has already gone much longer than most without name calling. I hope it stays that way.

How would UHC drive up costs? The issue is that the cost of health care is set by private insurance, without regulation and without oversight. If you are for a competitive market, why would a public option be so bad? You aren't taking away private health care, you are just adding additional competition, while also covering people that have no health care. Why is that so wrong?

Well, actually health care is regulated at the state level. It's not a free for all.

The cost issue is very complicated. It's not just the private insurance industry that sets costs. Costs are driven by a lot of factors: (1) the incentives facing doctors and hospitals; (2) how well we prevent or manage illnesses as opposed to treating them in later stages when it is more expensive; (3) defensive medicine where doctors do multiple tests or over-treat to avoid malpractice risk(though I think the amount of this is probably over stated); (4) the marketing of pharmaceuticals that lead patients to demand expensive medication that might not be needed; etc; (5) medical culture that tries to preserve life at all costs often without regard for quality of life (much of the cost of health care is incurred in the last month of life); (6) lifestyle factors of the populace (smoking, eating, exercise habits, etc.).

There was a recent New Yorker article that really hit at some of the perverse incentives that drive up costs without improving care.

Universal coverage could actually reduce costs by making sure that uncovered people get preventative care rather than go untreated and then end up in emergency rooms at the late stages.

Quoted from "nugby"
I can't imagine any workable system for the American population, either by incentive or compulsion.

That's just pessimism. Even as a realist I see that.

Quoted from "nugby"
If you keep your blood pressure within normal levels, you'll get a break on income taxes? Quit smoking, meet the president? Eat more than one twinkie a week - fined 25 or one hour of community service. Fail to get a flu shot - automatic income tax audit. Yes these are silly examples, but I can't think of a serious one that would actually work. I'd love to hear suggestions.

In the UK, doctors receive bonuses based on the overall health of their patients. If they get their patients to quit smoking, lose weight, and lower their blood pressure they are paid more.

Additionally, if you didn't notice, there is a huge healthy lifestyle movement in the US. Be it organic, Atkins diets, or exercise machines on TV, people want to be healthy. That in itself is something pretty much everyone wants.

Quoted from "nugby"
As to waivers, that's a joke too. Maybe, just maybe, it might limit some costs in actually providing care. You may not be aware of it, but many years ago New York and other states instituted no-fault auto insurance rules to limit law suits from auto accident cases. It took time, but the stated objective was reached - law suits from accidents declined. However, an entire industry based on litigating no-fault claims arose, so the total number of lawsuits actually increased rather than decreased.

Again, the human body doesn't equate to a car, so your example doesn't really make sense.

Quoted from "nugby"
The same would happen under your suggestion. Claims would be denied for people who were, or appeared to be, hurt in a waived activity. They would sue for coverage, and the cost of litigation would more than offset the savings from the original denied care.

Unless you remove the need for claims. Now if you have pain, if you are injured, if you are sick . . . then go to the doctor, get diagnosed, get treatment. Obviously, there are people that abuse the system (like faking pain for pain killers), but ultimately the care of a patient should be determined by the doctor, and fake injuries can be identified (like people who refuse to go to physical therapy to address pain).

The point of UHC is patients to get the care they need, determined by a doctor (not a bureaucrat or insurer).

Quoted from "nugby"
As an aside, did anyone listen to the NPR piece on health insurance today? There was a report about a woman who had to chose between medication for herself or food for her kids. The reporter stated that the woman was forced into that choice because she did not have health insurance. That is important because it was biased reporting. The news media in general has accepted that universal insurance or universal care is a necessity and is reporting that way.

I can't express how absolutely apathetic you are. How bout having a little empathy for her situation? All you did was ridicule the report as biased, but didn't provide what she could do in her certain situation to get by. So how bout it? What's the solution? How do you choose between a prescription to treat an illness or pain, and buying groceries when you don't have enough for both?

Quoted from "nugby"
In the piece, the reporter did not say that the woman was forced into the decision because she didn't have food insurance. Why? Because we already have that. Nor did the reporter say that the woman was forced into that choice because the medication was otherwise too expensive. That is a related, but separate problem from the availability of insurance.

Food insurance? Get serious.

The cost of medication in the US is ridiculous, but it's not exclusive from UHC. Prescription in the US is so high because of Part D of Medicare, which let's pharmaceutical companies set their own prices. In other countries, prescription drugs are part of the system, so there is no cost, or the cost of one medication is equal to that of another.

Quoted from "nugby"
MRZ wrote: I can't imagine any workable system for the American population, either by incentive or compulsion. If you keep your blood pressure within normal levels, you'll get a break on income taxes? Quit smoking, meet the president? Eat more than one twinkie a week - fined 25 or one hour of community service. Fail to get a flu shot - automatic income tax audit.

So unless the system can completely micro-manage everybody's health decisions you think it's unworkable? You seem to have this view that America is composed of nothing but free riders and people who will abuse themselves the moment they have public health insurance. That sounds about as hollow as the argument that handing out condoms makes teens promiscuous.

Do you think other countries that have public healthcare systems don't have free riders? Do you think they all have strapping people who never get sick?

Australians have similar health profiles to Americans. They have a ton of fatty smokers, yet their healthcare system seems to manage.

Your tack here of "Americans are too fat and lazy to have health insurance" just seems over-the-top cynical. You're setting the bar too high for success and the bar too low for the expectation that majority of people won't abuse the system.

Quoted from "nugby"
To me, that's just another example of the media clouding the issue to favor rushing to social medicine.

A respectable reporter can only write about what is said or they are told. The previous plan was incomplete, and the reporter paraphrased critics who probably literally said "millions will be left uninsured" and cost 1 trillion dollars.

This story is a rebuttal to the earlier critics. Here a more complete plan can cost approximately 600 billion (notice it's not a specific dollar amount) and cover 97 of the population.

Is that 100 no, but if you are the one proposing the plan you aren't going to come out and say "here's a plan, but it doesn't cover 3 of the population". That's just semantics from the source providing the statement for the story. It has nothing to due with liberal media.

Quoted from "zeno"
nugby How about we take it further and remove government meddling in our lives. Privatize the fire department. It's been a drain on public finances for too long and we have too many free loaders, people who have fireplaces in their homes, too many electronics and faulty wiring, gas based stoves, people who live in areas with brush fires, etc. Let's have private fire insurance. Socialized fire safety is for communists. We're going to have employer sponsored plans. We will have the best fire department in the world, even if only 40 of the population will have fire coverage.

Public schools is a better example. Especially because the quality of education competes with private schools. Same for Public and Private Universities.

Check this out.

Zeno wrote:

Quote
How about we take it further and remove government meddling in our lives. Privatize the fire department. It's been a drain on public finances for too long and we have too many free loaders, people who have fireplaces in their homes, too many electronics and faulty wiring, gas based stoves, people who live in areas with brush fires, etc.

Interesting idea. Sounds like you're not aware that the vast majority of fire departments in the US are volunteer departments. Many of those volunteers are indeed professional firemen, but they work in cities and volunteer in suburbs. I'll admit, the government gives the volunteer departments some support, such as collecting a base tax for them.

I can accept that it is not completely outside the scope of our government to assist people in getting basic health care. I don't like it, but I can accept it. So, can we come up with enough volunteer care givers to provide basic support, like most communities do for fire prevention and fire fighting? I couldn't object to that I suppose.