Czuch: That's not good is it!! And also you have to figure that maybe a persons policy doesn't go far enough, or some company will weasel out of paying for treatment to make a bigger profit.

Actually that 18,000 is quite conservative. I've heard approx 40,000 a year might be the real figure in deaths that your system.

"Situational analysis of poverty and poverty-related health problems in the USA Human poverty index.

As we can see in the following graph [see link below], of 17 industrialized countries the US has the highest level of poverty. It also has the widest income disparity and the highest rate of child mortality.

Although child mortality in industrialized countries tends to be much lower than in poor countries, some rich countries have substantially more child deaths than others. America takes the lead.

Poverty as a determinant of poor health.

On observing the above graphs, note that poverty and child mortality rates tend to correlate closely. In terms of overall well-being, Sweden is one of the world leaders, with both poverty and child mortality rates at half those of the United States. But why? Sweden has one of the world's most comprehensive public welfare systems, based on strong political commitment to meeting all people's basic needs and assuring a decent quality of life. This commitment is sustained through high progressive taxation.

In the US, poverty rates for vulnerable group--notably children and single-mother households--are worse than in other industrialized countries. This is partly explained by the nation's huge--and growing--income disparity. Today 1 of every 4 American children lives below the poverty line. In the North, this high rate is matched only by the former Soviet Union."

http://www.healthwrights.org/articles/geneva/geneva1.htm


Child mortality rates....in other words, death. Also see my post from last night, the results of a CDC study.

On the other hand, Sweden takes care of its people. There's the "one example" of "successful socialism" that some have been demanding.

The U.S. surely is the world's number 1 country, in terms of wealth & power. But whoever is not aware how low it ranks in health care, education, and some other crucial indicators, compared to other industrialized nations, simply does not want to be aware.

Czuch: Czuch, we've been THE NUMBER ONE country of all time, our EMPIRE was the biggest ever. But since the end on WWII in recognition of the bravery of those from the Empire, we went to a commonwealth, which the Queen is still the head of.

(V): But that's the UK.

No, thats everywhere!!!! Thats no different than here in the US either! You show up at a hospital and the most needy are seen first, regardless of who you are or what you can pay!!!!

Bernice: No, if it is urgent... you get seen and sorted. They weigh up the effect of waiting on the patients health. REAL urgent cases goto the top of the list. Eg... if you have a MRI booked at a certain time and a urgent case comes up, you will wait till they are seen first.

"but you might have to wait months to see a specialist for the final results."

Possibly, but if something URGENT shows up, you'll be called in very quickly. All scans/x-rays here are looked at as soon as they can be, which is usually the same day, plus I know with X-rays the people developing them look at them immeadiately after being developed to check for quality and any obvious urgent discoveries.

But that's the UK.

(V): "More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.


Be careful with stats, you know they can be misinterpreted...

Yeah, maybe true, but they could be talking about someone with some advanced stage of a disease that would cost millions to treat, and maybe they cant pay that, so they end up dying sooner than the person who can pay those costly treatments?

You have to remember too.... we all die eventually regardless of our health care system and regardless of our ability to pay for treatment

Anyway, do go throwing those stats around like they mean that 18 thousand people went to the hospital with some sort of infection and were turned away so they died an agonizing death because they didnt get some cheap anti biotic or something like that... its just not the case!.

(V): and where does your country rank overall compared to the US?????? There are many downsides to your social democracy, or whatever its called......

The USA is the number 1 country in the world, not sure where you guys fall on that scale?????

Czuch: Facts....

"More than 18,000 adults in the USA die each year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care, researchers report in a landmark study released Tuesday.

The 193-page report, ''Care Without Coverage: Too Little, Too Late,'' examines the plight of 30 million -- one in seven -- working-age Americans whose employers don't provide insurance and who don't qualify for government medical care.

About 10 million children lack insurance; elderly Americans are covered by Medicare.

It is the second in a planned series of six reports by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) examining the impact of the nation's fragmented health system. The IOM is a non-profit organization of experts that advises Congress on health issues.

Overall, the researchers say, 18,314 people die in the USA each year because they lack preventive services, a timely diagnosis or appropriate care.......

Among the study's findings is a comparison of the uninsured with the insured:

* Uninsured people with colon or breast cancer face a 50% higher risk of death.

* Uninsured trauma victims are less likely to be admitted to the hospital, receive the full range of needed services, and are 37% more likely to die of their injuries.

* About 25% of adult diabetics without insurance for a year or more went without a checkup for two years. That boosts their risk of death, blindness and amputations resulting from poor circulation.

Being uninsured also magnifies the risk of death and disability for chronically sick and mentally ill patients, poor people and minorities, who disproportionately lack access to medical care, the landmark study states.

... Also this report has some shocking info...
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2003/10/29/medical_system_is_leading_cause_of_death_and_injury_in_us.htm

Tuesday: I dont give a crap about the bible, it has absolutely nothing to do with my politics....

The Usurper: Proper health care saves lives. Lack of it results in deaths.

...and has been proven, socialized health care can result in death by waiting, and at least where i live, all mothers and children already receive free health care, and no person is ever denied care based on their ability to pay!

The Usurper: If they will save lives, they are pretty good ones.


Well, the problem you miss is that even if lives are saved in the short run with your socialized ideas, what if in the end they ruin or destroy a whole country????? A country so dependent on its government, after the government has collapsed, after the economy is ruined, after there are no more fat cats left to pay for your programs after we are all pounded into middle class oblivion, then what? You will personally be long ago dead, happy in your death that you saved someones life with your socialist compassion, but the people generations from now who suffer because your socialized ideals have so weakened a country that more suffer than ever before?

You have no proof that this is not the destiny of your social democracy gone so wrong, is there?

Artful Dodger: Yes, our NHS has problems, but it is more efficient and costs less per person then your current system of private insurance unfettered does. It also rates more highly (18th place) then the USA's 37th place.

And you fail to mention that many Americans are trying to get Canadian medical care and are making sometimes false declarations to get it. Maybe if the 500,000+ American uses in a year of the Canadian system (In Ontario alone) stopped then Canadians would get better and quicker treatment... But they are still ranked 30th.. still better then the USA.

... And the one thing about the NHS... Public pressure gets results. In certain areas where the NHS has fallen in quality, the people of the UK have spoken and the government has acted on their behalf to get the problem fixed. It's not a case of lobbyists lining politicians pockets like in the USA and Health insurance companies ripping people off and playing with their health.

Artful Dodger:

But what if everyone wnated free health care but no one wanted to contribute to the costs? An impossible idea.


Thats the point missing in most arguments for government sponsored social programs.... it seems so stupid to me.... but free isnt really free, someone pays for it, the federal government gets its money from the people it works for, if everyone gets it for free and nobody pays into it, then where are you left?

Who is going to build the new MRI machine, if nobody is going to pay them to do it????? Thats right, nobody will, and they will get paid to do it, so its not free health care, its just free to the people who dont contribute anything to the society in which they live in!!! For the rest of us hard working souls, nothing is free, we are the ones working to make it free to the free loader! drives me nuts!

The Usurper: As a result, many average joes & their families suffer, some even to the point of death.


That is such a load of crap! Our lack of a national health care is not a causation for the death of anyone! There is not one person in the US denied health care, this even applies to those in this country who arent even citizens!

You really need to back up this crap with some facts please?

Tuesday: Very well put.

North Tower employee Teresa Veliz: [47th floor] “[T]he whole building shook. . . . the building shook again, this time even more violently….There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."

NBC television (from tapes recorded on 9/11 involving firefighters in the south tower):
Official: “Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.”
Official: “Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.”
Dispatcher: “Received battalion command. Additional explosion.”

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli: “[H]ow could this be happening so quickly [elevator doors blown out in north tower lobby] if a plane hit way above?” On 24th floor, “[we] heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator." Then, “another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I'm thinking, "Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!"

BBC Correspondent Steve Evans: "I was at the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an explosion. . . . The base of the building shook. . . . [T]hen there was a series of explosions."

NJ Fire Police Dept. Officer Sue Keane: [south tower] "[I]t sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened. . . . I knew something was going to happen. . . . It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion." [north tower] "[There was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. . . . I can't tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. . . . There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street."

Paramedic Kevin Darnowski: "I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down."

Emergency Medical Technician Gregg Brady: "I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now."

Firefighter Thomas Turilli: [south tower] “[I]t almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight."

Firefighter Craig Carlsen: “[We] heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down."

(The 9/11 Oral Histories were recorded by the NYC Fire Dept. in December, 2001, but not published until 2005, after the NY Supreme Court ordered their release. The 9/11 Commission, although it published its Report in 2004, did have access to these records. Yet, none of these testimonies, nor prior testimonies, made it into the official report, nor did the official report hint at the existence of eye-witness accounts running counter to the official conspiracy theory.)

Artful Dodger:

Causes of Newborn Deaths

"Most newborn deaths could be prevented if women had access to basic health care such as; immunizations to protect expectant mothers and newborns against tetanus, skilled midwifery care during childbirth, timely and appropriate treatment of newborn infections, and proper attention to hygiene, warmth, and breastfeeding for new babies."

http://www.savethechildren.org/programs/health/saving-newborn-lives/rates.html

This article is admittedly discussing world-wide poverty, and not focused on the U.S. But the same principles apply. Proper health care saves lives. Lack of it results in deaths.

Now I also admit the website I have posted from here is biased. It is called "Save the Children," and naturally is biased in favor of doing just that. :o)

Artful Dodger:

"Although previous reports have documented that rates of low birthweight and intrauterine growth retardation are higher among infants of women living in poverty, the infant mortality risk among infants born to women with low incomes has not been characterized recently. To analyze the relation between parental low income and infant mortality, CDC analyzed data from the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey (NMIHS) (the most recent data available). This report presents the findings of the analysis and indicates that for women with household incomes below the poverty level * in 1988, the infant mortality rate was 60% higher and the postneonatal mortality rate was twice as high as those for women living above poverty level."

"An infant death was defined as the death of a live-born infant before his or her first birthday; a neonatal death, as the death of a live-born infant less than 28 days after birth; and a postneonatal death, as the death of a live-born infant 28-364 days after birth."

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00039818.htm

Artful Dodger: the standard of care here is absolutely fabulous....sometimes.... as long as you are prepared to wait for months/years for it.

My partner Vern who died nearly 4 years ago had bad cataracts and was on the waiting list to have them "done" He died waiting. Heart patients have to wait 3-4 months to see a heart specialist when they could be dead tomorrow. Cancer patients have to wait months for chemo and when it comes it is too late....they die shortly afterwards.

You say someone has to pay....YES...the Govt. does...all peoples/creeds/colours/etc get free health care...AT A COST - to life through having to wait.

Last year I had to have an urgent colonoscopy...they put me on the urgent list and it took 5 weeks for me to get it done :)....thats just one example.....

England is basically the same I think and I cant speak for NZ.

I can get a MRI/catscan/ done in a couple days, but you might have to wait months to see a specialist for the final results....*shrugs*

The Usurper:You don't change an entire health care system on a hypothetical.  Where in the US has a child died because he/she didn't have access to health care?  There are free clinics in every state.  And even at our clinic, the one in my small town, there is a sign on the wall that all people are served regardless of ability to pay.  It's that way all over the US.   Some places try to get out of helping nonpaying patients, but many if not most don't.  At any rate, your pity play doens't work because it's not how our system works.  It's a nice strawman and I'm sure it gets those who share your view to nod their heads.  But it's not reality.

If you can't argue universal health care on all it's aspects and merits, then you  have nothing to say.  One hypothetical plea from pity isn't an argument of any substance.

Artful Dodger: You are correct, the Bible has nothing directly to do with public policy. And thank goodness for that! May Church & State ever remain separated.

It is people who make public policy. Some of them are atheists, yes. My father was an atheist, and a fine man to boot. People, however, are influenced by any number of things. Christians are reportedly influenced by their sacred texts. I would assume, and hope, that the Bible would inspire those who honor it, to be moved by the same pity God is presented therein as being moved by, when they contribute to public policy making.

To me, a plea from pity is a very sound argument. It is basic human kindness. I believe there is a hard, cold edge to your viewpoint, if you can't see the soundness in it. I also believe such pity is more "adaptable" for the human species, in an evolutionary sense. It inspires behavior & interaction that will make our earth sustainable for generations to come. To the contrary, it is pitilessness, or disregard, and the policies enacted or neglected because of it, which most threaten our survival.

I realize that "socialism" is a dirty word to you. Perhaps you have a visceral reaction when you think it, speak it or read it. You have been enculturated, as we all are. In any case, the word doesn't offend me. Label my ideas (not really mine) as you please. You can call them Communist or Satanist for that matter. If they will save lives, they are pretty good ones.

The Usurper:Is the life of a child who dies for lack of health care as meaningless to you as the book in which you profess to believe? Or did I take those scriptures out of context? If so, in what context should I understand them?.....

A plea from pity is not a sound argument.  And the Bible has nothing to do with public policy.  Even atheists can weigh in on public policy.

.... a more effective, more just, more humane & equitable ...
According to you.  I don't believe that your socialist ideas can deliver on what you suggest.

Bernice: Truth is, it's not really free.  People are paying for it.  Someone has to.  But I do agree with you that people needing care should be able to get it regardless of ability to pay.  We do have free clinics in the US and in some States, hospitals cannot turn away patients because of an inability to pay. 

One of the biggest factors for lowering health care costs is for people to take care of themselves.  Exercise, watch what one eats, and live a healthy life.  People who smoke but want free health care should have to quit smoking or pay their own way.  But that gets into a slippery slope into other life style issues and it's not likely to become a policy.  I'm a tad overweight and there is no excuse for it when I have all the available info for staying healthy.  I have several gyms close by, a beautiful walking path very close to my home, and a treadmill in my garage.  If my weight is causing me problems (it will if I don't get off my butt) then I should do something about it.  Living healthy costs us nothing.  Yet people often don't put for the effort.  I'm for personal responsibility first.  Government help as a last resort and then only very temporary.  And the Federal govt is incompetent.  They should guard the boarders, protect the constitution, and stay out of our lives.

Artful Dodger: Is the life of a child who dies for lack of health care as meaningless to you as the book in which you profess to believe? Or did I take those scriptures out of context? If so, in what context should I understand them?

I have not argued on this board for a replacement of capitalism with socialism. I have rather argued for a more effective, more just, more humane & equitable mixture of the two. You don't seem to understand, either, that our current system is closer to a mercantilist system than a true capitalist one, in many respects. But I can't get into that. Czuch would call it "babble" and you would call it "meaningless." Suffice to say, we have different perspectives & different values.

Ah...and I was hoping to sneak in here & make a couple of quick unchallenged posts. I have a screaming headache and I planned on meditating on Tuesday's new pic to ease the pain. lol :o)

Bernice:

Bernice:I don't know that I agree that free health care is a God given "right."  I do think it's our God ordained responsibility to care for the needy.  But as you say, there are those trollops that suck off the system and contribute nothing.  They have no right to care.  Some people think that by virtue of being a human being, they are entitled to care - free of charge. But what if everyone wnated free health care but no one wanted to contribute to the costs?  An impossible idea. 

I don't know much about the system in your country but will check into it to see what I can find.  If you are happy with it, that say something positive about the system.  But as you point out, there are downsides (and of course I am not saying the US system is the best it can be nor am I saying it's where it should be.  I think there is much room for improvement.

What is the standard of care in your country with respect to waiting etc?  My neighbor just got a kidney transplant.  She had been on home dialysis for a while and then a compatible kidney came through.  How long do people wait for critical care and screening  tests?  Here it's not long at all.  But I know in England, there are long waiting lists for some types of care.  In Canada, and MRI test takes many months.

Bernice: BUT by the same token....no ONE person will be turned away from hospital here becuase they don't have health insurance.....all are equal when it comes to that.....even a visiting american with no ins. can get free treatment.

Artful Dodger: yes they do have problems with their health care as does australia. we have poeple going to india for ops cause it is cheaper to fly there, have the op , fly home and be dead in a month, than it is to wait for 3 years for the op in australia and be dead in 6 months ROFL.......

Artful Dodger: In australia we have free education, free health care, nearly $600 per fortnight for the bludgers on the dole who refuse to go to work...all they have to do is apply for 2 jobs per week( I think it is) to collect that. Everybody gets paid to have babies...$2000 per child so you have the trollops of society having heaps of kids and then when the money has gone on drugs etc the Govt. looks after the kids with a payment every month - called "Child support"...I have a feeling that it depends on how much you have....rich get nothing , poor get it all. They dont have to work for any of this.

As you say free health care is a meaningless point when it is a god given right.....people expect it and really kick up when it isnt received.

I think either New Zealand or Australia is the Leader in social services and sets examples to the rest of the world.....not that they are good examples, when the bludgers abuse it.

The Usurper:  Your Bible quotes are meaningless on me.  I just skip them.

It is a meaningless point that you offer because it's only ONE thing in a socialist system.  Free health care doesn't equate to a high quality of life.  Besides that, the health care system in England leaves a lot to be desired.  It's riddled with problems. The only benefit is that those that don't pay into the system don't have to worry about paying for care.  But that care isn't always the best and it isn't timely care.  Doesn't Canada have a similar health care system?  Odd isn't it that many Canadian citizens come to the USA for care.  There are long waiting lines in Canada.  There is a shortage of doctors and nurses.  And just try to get an MRI in Canada.  One man got tired of waiting for his "turn" and registered as "Fido" in an animal hospital because they had such a machine and the waiting list wasn't as long. 

There may be some small advantages in Englands health care system but it doesn't measure up to a free-market approach to health care.  Perhaps the US system isn't perfect, but it's not an improvement to go to a free health care system.  That is more than a step backwards.

Artful Dodger: It isn't meaningless to those who suffer from a lack of it.

"Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish."
-- Matthew 18:14

"I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."
-- Ezekiel 36:26

The Usurper: Getting ahead, having opportunities to improve one's social and financial condition, becoming independent, is a far cry from simply getting free health care.  You cannot point to any country or system that has a track record of lifting millions of people from poverty to prosperity like a free market economy.  Only a free market system has a history that can do that.  Redistributing the wealth does not lift people out of poverty.  And you can't show any socialist system that has done so.  Pointing to free health care is a meaningless point. 

...we have a nation which is spiritually on its last legs.

Artful Dodger:

"I'm still waiting for anyone to give a good example of where socialism has worked for the average man."

Hasn't one good example been discussed just today? In England, a national health care system protects the lives & health of all citizens. For the average joe, I would imagine life & health to be a good thing. Here in America, national health care is considered (by some) an evil, a form of "creeping socialism." As a result, many average joes & their families suffer, some even to the point of death. I would say the average joe is better off with a national health care system, whatever label you might choose to stigmatize it.

Czuch:

"dont sell yourself so short"

Sell myself short? Tuesday & (V) have plenty to teach me, and I'm all ears. They have plenty to teach you also, if you'd listen. Whether I and they agree in all particulars about all things is irrevelant. They are exceptionally enlightened. I took the liberty of going back over some of Tuesday's posts here before I resurfaced. I was impressed! Her words reveal a wisdom I frankly did not previously know she possessed. And what's more, she was standing tall in a furnace, going it alone. As for (V), he is a breath of fresh air. He demonstrates to me with every post great subtlety of mind & understanding, and, thank goodness, does not bring to the table a boxed message stamped "Made in the U.S.A" on the lid.

On the other hand, Czuch, you contend that there are "basically just two political philosophies, at least here in the US." You are mistaken, and to me such a notion indicates a rigidity of thinking hazardous to your mental health, somewhat in the way brainwashing is hazardous. I don't say this to insult you. It applies to us all, if we aren't careful, and to the extent that we allow our minds to be manipulated by those with the motive, means & opportunity to do so.

(V): Agreed, a fluid mind is even a prerequisite. Charles Finney, the 19th century revivalist, said (paraphrase): "True Christian consistency lies in modifying one's opinion as often and as quickly as new light comes, and in no case defending a belief which new facts demonstrate cannot be true." His views were somewhat controversial. :o)

Tuesday: You are right. I was thinking volume as well as quality. Jim Dandy & Anastasia always have very good things to say. :o)

Czuch:It translates this way:  what I consider to be a better understanding of the world & politics, because it agrees with my view.

  Its another way of saying that you lack understanding of the world and politics.  It's a stealth.  It's the dreaded ad hominem again. 

I'm still waiting for anyone to give a good example of where socialism has worked for the average man.  In what socialist country has the socialist policies allowed the averege "joe" to "get ahead?"  Only a free-market system can do that.

How soon people have forgotten the economic lessons we learned in the Regan era.  Obama's policies will fail because they are built on false premises. 

The Usurper:

It's nice to come on and see able defenders of what I consider to be a better understanding of the world & politics,


Are you kidding me??? With basically just two political philosophies, at least here in the US, even a monkey can get lucky and happen to agree with you from time to time, I think you give them too much credit though if you think they have the some of the same beliefs as you and for the same reasons dont sell yourself so short

I am no Christian fundamentalist, but I share a few of the same views with them but for very different reasons, and just because we might happen to vote the same way, I have no illusions that they are on the same plane, so to speak....

Tuesday:

I mean.. I'm 43 and just being taught new things by someone on breathing!!

The Usurper: That's because their cup is full.

I find a fluid mind is best.

It's nice to come on and see able defenders of what I consider to be a better understanding of the world & politics, not to mention a reflection of larger hearts. I mean the posts of (V) and Tuesday. You guys are awesome. Keep it up! :o)

(V): "...a certain amount of living is required before certain aspects of Judaism can be taught. For to try to teach before hand would be like planting a seed in barren soil."

That is an excellent point. And it presupposes something else, that the first 40 years weren't spent in a stupor, but rather that the mind had been daily exercised through broad study and contemplation. One man I know says that trying to discuss politics with most of his fellow Americans is a fruitless endeavor. Before any meaningful discussion can take place, he first recommends they spend 20 years reading every book they can get their hands on, from every political persuasion, right, left, and center, and couple that with study of history, philosophy, theology, etc., just whatever is needed to get some kind of handle on the real world. Then perhaps an intelligent discussion that may lead somewhere constructive might ensue. Needless to say, most don't appreciate his recommendation. :o)

Tuesday: quite a few