Debunking the 47 million uninsured myth
Mustang1 @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:17 pm
daveS daveS:
Are you going to follow me around and make false, slanderous accusations on every post?
You’re like a 9 year old in high school.
Maybe you should read
You explicitly agree, in using this web site or any service provided, that you shall not:
(a) Provide any Content or perform any conduct that may be unlawful, illegal, threatening, harmful, abusive, harassing, stalking, tortious, defamatory, libelous, vulgar, obscene, offensive, objectionable, pornographic, designed to or does interfere or interrupt this web site or any service provided, infected with a virus or other destructive or deleterious programming routine, give rise to civil or criminal liability, or which may violate an applicable local, national or international law;
(b) Impersonate or misrepresent your association with any person or entity, or forge or otherwise seek to conceal or misrepresent the origin of any Content provided by you;
(c) Collect or harvest any data about other users;
(d) Provide or use this web site and any Content or service in any commercial manner or in any manner that would involve junk mail, spam, chain letters, pyramid schemes, or any other form of unauthorized advertising without our prior written consent;
(e) Provide any Content that may give rise to our civil or criminal liability or which may consititue or be considered a violation of any local, national or international law, including but not limited to laws relating to copyright, trademark, patent, or trade secrets.
at applies to you as well dayseed
Actually, it doesn't apply to Dayseed because he agress NOT to us Simon Fraser's Online Learning Community http://coopcommunity.sfu.ca/modules.php ... file=index. And at least Dave's dropped "libel" from his hissy fit after i had to correct him last time.
Oh...and the Pièce de résistance - Dave insults him in hypocritical fashion by calling him a "9 year old in high school"! Which is weird because usually 9 year olds don't go to highschool which would mean Dayseed is a genius or something or Dave can't even get his dipwad insults to make sense. Either way, hypocrisy, irrelevance and stupidity! The dave the way.
Oh...and nice work dodging the questions regarding "lifestyle" in regards to people with HIV/Aids.
N_Fiddledog @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:43 pm
20/20 took on Health Care last night.
Canadian and British plans got a dis.
Scape @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:17 pm
What's with the stash, wasn't that guy bustin pedos?
It's a shame that basic coverage and extended care all get lumped up in the same argument. Coverage issues is basic access for basic medical needs not looking at cutting edge high cost procedures as the norm of care. Dental, drug and elective procedures are not the same as primary care and to include them as the basis of analysis is a misnomer at best.
Toro @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:39 pm
Frederick Frederick:
But still, those 29 million (just less than one in ten Americans) face potentially serious repercussions for their choice not to have coverage, and you cannot simply delete them from the count and say there's no problem. Or are health care costs not really one of the leading causes of bankruptcy in the US?
There are going to be problems in any system. There are many problems in the Canadian system.
But if you have the means and choose not to buy health insurance in the US, then you risk going through bankruptcy. If you choose not to have house insurance and your house burns down, that is your problem, not the government's nor mine. It is no different for health care.
Robair @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:45 pm
Toro Toro:
But if you have the means and choose not to buy health insurance in the US, then you risk going through bankruptcy.
Is everybody ignoring my post on purpose? According to that study, 75% of bankruptcys due to medical bills happened to people WHO HAD INSURANCE at the onsent of the illness/injury.
You don't just risk bankruptcy by not having insurance in the States. You risk bankruptcy by needing medical care in the States period. My in laws have insurance through the millitary. Retired Navy. He has fallen ill and they are burning through their retirement awefully fricken fast.
So what's the point of paying those high premiums? Is it any wonder so many choose not to flush that money down the drain?
Scape @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:55 pm
Robair Robair:
Is it any wonder so many choose not to flush that money down the drain?
Exactly. For profit insurance means your health is a game to them and as soon as you need help they will play you for whatever excuse they can find to dump your cover. That's the basis of a for profit system that has had premiums skyrocket over the last 8 years and has had profits go up nearly 500% and yet wages have stayed the same and unemployment has gone up. What drives premiums isn't someone with a 30 year smoking habit, it's the stocks and why a 350$ wheelchair cost $1200 a month to rent.
fifeboy @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:06 pm
N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
20/20 took on Health Care last night.
Canadian and British plans got a dis.
Horsemanure!Canadian and British plans got a dis.
If Canada has such terrible health care than why do the statistics show our results being better than in the U.S. cheque out http://www.who.int/whosis/en/ and go to customized search and look up Cancer Mortality rate, Cardiovascular disease Mortality rate, Infant Mortality rate, Healthy Life expectancy, Life expectancy at birth, Under 5 mortality rate, HIV infection rate, etc. As I am sure some will point out, the U.S. has the best cancer survival rate in the world and a lower cancer death rate than Canada. That is true. In Canada the rate is 138/100 000 where in the U.S. it's 134/100 000. But when we look at other diseases, take CV disease, in the U.S. the death rate is 188/100 000 and in Canada it is 141/ 100 000. I would maintain that the differences in cancer rates is not significant, while the CV death rate difference is. I'm not a statistics guy, but it seems quite clear. The other statistics don't bode well for private health care either. Like I said before the election in the U.S., we need to gird our loins for an onslaught of anecdotal information about every Canadian who has had a hangnail operation go wrong. It is BS.
And Robair, you are exactly right.
Toro @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:37 pm
Robair Robair:
Is everybody ignoring my post on purpose? According to that study, 75% of bankruptcys due to medical bills happened to people WHO HAD INSURANCE at the onsent of the illness/injury.
You don't just risk bankruptcy by not having insurance in the States. You risk bankruptcy by needing medical care in the States period. My in laws have insurance through the millitary. Retired Navy. He has fallen ill and they are burning through their retirement awefully fricken fast.
So what's the point of paying those high premiums? Is it any wonder so many choose not to flush that money down the drain?
You don't just risk bankruptcy by not having insurance in the States. You risk bankruptcy by needing medical care in the States period. My in laws have insurance through the millitary. Retired Navy. He has fallen ill and they are burning through their retirement awefully fricken fast.
So what's the point of paying those high premiums? Is it any wonder so many choose not to flush that money down the drain?
First of all, how do you know they were paying high premiums, or were you just assuming that? Did they find out how much each family was paying for insurance? I don't know, I didn't read the study. However, a friend of mine makes a six figure salaries and pays $600 a month in insurance while others who make considerably less pay more. He makes a choice about how much insurance he wishes to carry.
You could ask the same question about Canadian medicare - why pay all those high taxes if you have to wait months on end to have surgery or see a doctor?
Most people who have an illness do not go bankrupt. Most people have their insurance cover their expenses. As the link from your post states
$1:
Many families with continuous coverage appeared to be under-insured, responsible for thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs.
They did not have enough insurance. Again, to make the house analogy, if you have a $200,000 house and you insure it up to $100,000, if it burns down, you are out of pocket $100,000.
This is not to minimize issues regarding catastrophic insurance or the employment-based system. I'm pretty sure that if we were to start from scratch, this isn't the system we'd build. However, most Americans are happy with their health insurance provider.
Toro @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:42 pm
I really did not want this thread to turn into another Canada v US medical system debate, though of course that's what it will turn into. But since we're going that way,
$1:
A recent excellent unpublished study by Samuel Preston and Jessica Ho of the University of Pennsylvania compare mortality rates for breast and prostate cancer. These are two of the most common and deadly forms of cancer--in the United States prostate cancer is the second leading cause of male cancer deaths, and breast cancer is the leading cause of female cancer deaths. These forms of cancer also appear to be less sensitive to known attributes of diet and other kinds of non-medical behavior than are lung cancer and many other cancers.
These authors show that the fraction of men receiving a PSA test, which is a test developed about 25 years ago to detect the presence of prostate cancer, is far higher in the US than in Sweden, France, and other countries that are usually said to have better health delivery systems. Similarly, the fraction of women receiving a mammogram, a test developed about 30 years ago to detect breast cancer, is also much higher in the US. The US also more aggressively treats both these (and other) cancers with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy than do other countries.
Preston and Hu show that this more aggressive detection and treatment were apparently effective in producing a better bottom line since death rates from breast and prostate cancer declined during the past 20 [years] by much more in the US than in 15 comparison countries of Europe and Japan.
These authors show that the fraction of men receiving a PSA test, which is a test developed about 25 years ago to detect the presence of prostate cancer, is far higher in the US than in Sweden, France, and other countries that are usually said to have better health delivery systems. Similarly, the fraction of women receiving a mammogram, a test developed about 30 years ago to detect breast cancer, is also much higher in the US. The US also more aggressively treats both these (and other) cancers with surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy than do other countries.
Preston and Hu show that this more aggressive detection and treatment were apparently effective in producing a better bottom line since death rates from breast and prostate cancer declined during the past 20 [years] by much more in the US than in 15 comparison countries of Europe and Japan.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/07/ ... hcare.html
Toro @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 4:48 pm
Why do Americans live less long and spend more on healthcare? For one, they are fatter than everyone else.
$1:
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Obesity and Healthcare Costs
Two facts from the Wall Street Journal a few days ago:
The prevalence of obesity rose 37% between 1998 and 2006....Obese people spent 42% more than people of normal weight on medical costs in 2006.
This is consistent with what I said in a column on healthcare fallacies in the NY Times a couple years ago:
Americans are also more likely to be obese, leading to heart disease and other medical problems. Among Americans, 31 percent of men and 33 percent of women have a body mass index of at least 30, a definition of obesity, versus 17 percent of men and 19 percent of women in Canada. Japan, which has the longest life expectancy among major nations, has obesity rates of about 3 percent.
The causes of American obesity are not fully understood, but they involve lifestyle choices we make every day, as well as our system of food delivery. Research by the Harvard economists David Cutler, Ed Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro concludes that America’s growing obesity problem is largely attributable to our economy’s ability to supply high-calorie foods cheaply. Lower prices increase food consumption, sometimes beyond the point of optimal health.
FYI, here, from OECD data presented in the O'Neill study, are the percentages of the male population with a body-mass index of 30 or more (female obesity rates are similar):
Japan 2.8
France 9.8
Germany 14.4
Canada 17.0
U.K. 22.7
U.S. 31.1
The bottom line: Differences in healthcare costs and health outcomes, either over time or across countries, depend on a lot more than the national system of health insurance.
Obesity and Healthcare Costs
Two facts from the Wall Street Journal a few days ago:
The prevalence of obesity rose 37% between 1998 and 2006....Obese people spent 42% more than people of normal weight on medical costs in 2006.
This is consistent with what I said in a column on healthcare fallacies in the NY Times a couple years ago:
Americans are also more likely to be obese, leading to heart disease and other medical problems. Among Americans, 31 percent of men and 33 percent of women have a body mass index of at least 30, a definition of obesity, versus 17 percent of men and 19 percent of women in Canada. Japan, which has the longest life expectancy among major nations, has obesity rates of about 3 percent.
The causes of American obesity are not fully understood, but they involve lifestyle choices we make every day, as well as our system of food delivery. Research by the Harvard economists David Cutler, Ed Glaeser and Jesse Shapiro concludes that America’s growing obesity problem is largely attributable to our economy’s ability to supply high-calorie foods cheaply. Lower prices increase food consumption, sometimes beyond the point of optimal health.
FYI, here, from OECD data presented in the O'Neill study, are the percentages of the male population with a body-mass index of 30 or more (female obesity rates are similar):
Japan 2.8
France 9.8
Germany 14.4
Canada 17.0
U.K. 22.7
U.S. 31.1
The bottom line: Differences in healthcare costs and health outcomes, either over time or across countries, depend on a lot more than the national system of health insurance.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/08/ ... costs.html
Walk through an American airport compared to a European or even a Canadian one, and this is very apparent.
Also, Americans spend more on cutting edge technologies. A friend of mine in Vancouver died of colon cancer during the early part of this decade. He wanted to take Avastin, which was available in the US but was not yet available in Canada, or at least in BC. BC Health had not yet decided to pick up the cost of what is a very expensive drug. He tried to get into a test group for Avastin for another treatment in Seattle but was unsuccessful. Anyways, Americans were spending more on Avastin when it first came out than anywhere, including Canada. This is common.
$1:
Oh, why health costs increase? The basic reason why health costs increased is that health care is a good thing! Because today there is a lot more you can do! Consider all these expenses that are diagnostic. Cat scans, X-rays, MRIs and now the proton-powered whatever-it-is. Something that is the size of a football field, cost $50 million, and has all sorts of diagnostic powers. A lot of these technologies clearly reveal things that would not be revealed otherwise. There's no question about it. Diagnostics have improved. Technology has improved. You know, sending things through your blood stream to help in operations, instead of cutting you open. It's incredible. But these things are costly. But for older people longevity is increasing by a month each year.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/07/ ... hcare.html
Just interesting points of topic.
Scape @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:00 pm
Toro Toro:
However, most Americans are happy with their health insurance provider.
As are most Canadians satisfied with their private insurers but the issue is not the providers it is what is considered their burden of responsibility. For profit providers pull cover on a routine basis based on profit and not health reasons. That alone is reason for reform.
Private industry innovates and public policies regulates that is what they do best. The marriage between the two is one that can happen for the public good and it is not an impossible dream. High premiums do not sustain the US R&D and new treatments. That is an issue of sheer volume.
Toro @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:07 pm
For the record, I am in favour of a hybrid system between the private and public sector. It is interesting being a Canadian in the US in that I see the demonization of the Canadian system down here and the demonization of the American system up there. Both are done to reinforce existing perceptions as neither wants to adopt the other's system, though eventually, the two will come closer together. When discussing the Canadian system in America, I generally am supportive of it, at least in terms of dispelling the myths.
But Canadians have myths about the American system too. My guess is that most Canadians would be surprised to know that almost half of health care spending in the US is paid for by the government, and about one-eighth is paid for out of pocket by the consumer. Most Canadians would probably believe those numbers are flipped.
Scape @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:14 pm
Well aware of the one trillion the medicare, medicaid and veterans costs but there is 1.5 trillion in private from the equivalent amount. On a basic coverage issue that alone is half a trillion in waste. It's the reason why 16%+ of US GDP is spent on that system and an additional 3% is in lobbying. Compared on that alone the US system is TWICE as expensive as the Canadian one and doesn't even cover basic medical need.
Dayseed @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:14 pm
Toro,
But what is scary about the American system, to borrow from your house analogy, is that there are people who will actively search through my house debris before, during or after the fire looking for an excuse to say the fire was my fault, like I failed to disclose the presence of a main-floor microwave which may not have had a single thing to do with the fire, claim I had material non-disclosure and therefore rescind my insurance. With a public health-care system, that doesn't happen.
It's the for-profit mentality that scares people up here. If profit is your corporation's goal, spending money on you to heal you is the antithesis of that goal. Better to snub your claim and keep you paying even higher premiums.
Let car-insurance and house-insurance be for-profit, but not health-insurance.
Frederick @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:23 pm
Dayseed Dayseed:
Toro,
But what is scary about the American system, to borrow from your house analogy, is that there are people who will actively search through my house debris before, during or after the fire looking for an excuse to say the fire was my fault, like I failed to disclose the presence of a main-floor microwave which may not have had a single thing to do with the fire, claim I had material non-disclosure and therefore rescind my insurance. With a public health-care system, that doesn't happen.
It's the for-profit mentality that scares people up here. If profit is your corporation's goal, spending money on you to heal you is the antithesis of that goal. Better to snub your claim and keep you paying even higher premiums.
Let car-insurance and house-insurance be for-profit, but not health-insurance.
But what is scary about the American system, to borrow from your house analogy, is that there are people who will actively search through my house debris before, during or after the fire looking for an excuse to say the fire was my fault, like I failed to disclose the presence of a main-floor microwave which may not have had a single thing to do with the fire, claim I had material non-disclosure and therefore rescind my insurance. With a public health-care system, that doesn't happen.
It's the for-profit mentality that scares people up here. If profit is your corporation's goal, spending money on you to heal you is the antithesis of that goal. Better to snub your claim and keep you paying even higher premiums.
Let car-insurance and house-insurance be for-profit, but not health-insurance.
Exactly. And even if, while insured, you were to acquire such a main-floor microwave, and your present insurer said "okay, we'll accept that," there are still risks. If you lose your job and your insurance lapses, your future insurer may not be so accepting. So even if you have insurance, you're not guaranteed coverage forever.