![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
green-man-2010.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsIt has been said that if Socialism ever came to the USA, there would be starvation, rioting in the streets, and the whole fabric of society would collapse. People would literally die as a result of policies.
Well, lets be honest, Americans have been dying of US government policies for a long time now.
Americans died as a result of the wars in Vietnam , Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Americans are dying as a result of the fact that many US citizens are tried for murder and end up on Death Row. Americans die, on average, at a significantly younger ge than people do in Sweden. Oh, and more babies per 1,000 die in America than in 31 other countries.
Fact: a baby has a better chance of reaching the age of 1, and the age of 5 in many European countries than a baby born in the USA. So much for the 'Free Market' saving lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
Now, why is this, you may ask? I mean, the USA is the one nation in the developed world where there is no National Health programme. Is this a good thing or not? Let me explain something to you that you might have missed...
Currently, in the UK, there are around 2 deaths a week on average due to women being attacked by their partners or ex partners. So, you may think that there is a real need for hostels, refuges, where women can go seeking shelter and safety. Although volunteers have opened up refuges, there are few places. there are even fewer places for boys between the ages of 14 and 17. None at all for young men aged 17 and over.Now why?
Is it because these people lack the purchasing power?
I think this one question lays bare the impotence of the Free Market in tackling social problems. Sure, if you happen to be a celebrity, a place like The Priory Clinic will take you in and detox you and help you cure your alcoholism. But if you are GI Joe, just come back from a tour of duty in 'Nam or Iraq, and you are having recurring nightmares due to having seen your buddies literally blown to bits right in front of you - well, there is not much help for you and ~your~ drinking problem.
See , when I was young , I read this book by a guy named Adam Smith, who was talking about how governments didn't need to legislate so much, because if people wanted something, the market would supply it - the market, if allowed to operate freely, was like an 'invisible hand', that would solve all people's problems.
And to ~some~ extent this is true. If you have money, and can buy what you want, someone out there will try to meet that need to make a profit. But suppose you are dirt poor? I veture to suggest that , far from falling over themselves to develop a solution to your problems , the free market will not give a damn.
Let's be honest, in the USA , men of a certain age caan get Viagra, no trouble.
But a woman who wants the pill - sometimes on prescription b/coz her physician has prescribed it to cure a hormonal imbalance that causes heavy and painful periods for instance - well, some self appointed guardian of public morals can refuse to let her have her medication because he is a pharmacist who opposes contraception on religious grounds. And, if he happens to be the only Pharmacist in a small , one horse town , what use is this 'invisble hand then?
JK Rowling is the world famous Author of the Harry Potter books.A self made millionairess. yet, she says, she will never vote Conservative or become a tax Exile.
She says that it was the safety net of Social Security that enabled her to survive when times were hard, and now that she can afford to, she has no problem with paying taxes to help women who are struggling now.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7096786.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
This, to me, is the reason we need socialist policies in some areas.i dunno about the government buying up businesses like the phone system , or steel production - that sort of thing is best done by the private sector, I believe. but education, housing, healthcare - the government has a role here, and governments that can find a way to deliver these services well are doing a great job.
Americans ought to get real, there are lots of counties where the State is handling a lot of stuff, and people are having better outcomes than US citizens as a result. so, to any and all who suggest the Free market as a cure all, I suggest they stick the 'Invisble Hand' of Adam Smith somewhere that the sun don't shine.
Well, lets be honest, Americans have been dying of US government policies for a long time now.
Americans died as a result of the wars in Vietnam , Iraq, and Afghanistan.
Americans are dying as a result of the fact that many US citizens are tried for murder and end up on Death Row. Americans die, on average, at a significantly younger ge than people do in Sweden. Oh, and more babies per 1,000 die in America than in 31 other countries.
Fact: a baby has a better chance of reaching the age of 1, and the age of 5 in many European countries than a baby born in the USA. So much for the 'Free Market' saving lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
Now, why is this, you may ask? I mean, the USA is the one nation in the developed world where there is no National Health programme. Is this a good thing or not? Let me explain something to you that you might have missed...
Currently, in the UK, there are around 2 deaths a week on average due to women being attacked by their partners or ex partners. So, you may think that there is a real need for hostels, refuges, where women can go seeking shelter and safety. Although volunteers have opened up refuges, there are few places. there are even fewer places for boys between the ages of 14 and 17. None at all for young men aged 17 and over.Now why?
Is it because these people lack the purchasing power?
I think this one question lays bare the impotence of the Free Market in tackling social problems. Sure, if you happen to be a celebrity, a place like The Priory Clinic will take you in and detox you and help you cure your alcoholism. But if you are GI Joe, just come back from a tour of duty in 'Nam or Iraq, and you are having recurring nightmares due to having seen your buddies literally blown to bits right in front of you - well, there is not much help for you and ~your~ drinking problem.
See , when I was young , I read this book by a guy named Adam Smith, who was talking about how governments didn't need to legislate so much, because if people wanted something, the market would supply it - the market, if allowed to operate freely, was like an 'invisible hand', that would solve all people's problems.
And to ~some~ extent this is true. If you have money, and can buy what you want, someone out there will try to meet that need to make a profit. But suppose you are dirt poor? I veture to suggest that , far from falling over themselves to develop a solution to your problems , the free market will not give a damn.
Let's be honest, in the USA , men of a certain age caan get Viagra, no trouble.
But a woman who wants the pill - sometimes on prescription b/coz her physician has prescribed it to cure a hormonal imbalance that causes heavy and painful periods for instance - well, some self appointed guardian of public morals can refuse to let her have her medication because he is a pharmacist who opposes contraception on religious grounds. And, if he happens to be the only Pharmacist in a small , one horse town , what use is this 'invisble hand then?
JK Rowling is the world famous Author of the Harry Potter books.A self made millionairess. yet, she says, she will never vote Conservative or become a tax Exile.
She says that it was the safety net of Social Security that enabled her to survive when times were hard, and now that she can afford to, she has no problem with paying taxes to help women who are struggling now.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7096786.ece?token=null&offset=0&page=1
This, to me, is the reason we need socialist policies in some areas.i dunno about the government buying up businesses like the phone system , or steel production - that sort of thing is best done by the private sector, I believe. but education, housing, healthcare - the government has a role here, and governments that can find a way to deliver these services well are doing a great job.
Americans ought to get real, there are lots of counties where the State is handling a lot of stuff, and people are having better outcomes than US citizens as a result. so, to any and all who suggest the Free market as a cure all, I suggest they stick the 'Invisble Hand' of Adam Smith somewhere that the sun don't shine.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 1/6/10 11:53 (UTC)you may also want to answer the second link on my latest post that shows the UK doing better than the USA , iusing the same yardstick on IMR...
personally, I think this is brilliant, and will be adding it to my ETA on the latest OP.
However, could you do me the links on cancer cure rates - the USA leads in this field, mainly due to a policy of rigourous early screening. Every country ought to b e doing this too, and we would certainly do well to emulate American practice in this area.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 1/6/10 11:56 (UTC)No, we're not. We're seeing that the government apparently spends more, but the data does not show less achievement when all areas are otherwise equal.
you may also want to answer the second link on my latest post that shows the UK doing better than the USA , iusing the same yardstick on IMR...
You haven't shown that.
However, could you do me the links on cancer cure rates - the USA leads in this field, mainly due to a policy of rigourous early screening. Every country ought to b e doing this too, and we would certainly do well to emulate American practice in this area.
But other countries cannot do this because the governments run the health care system.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 1/6/10 12:34 (UTC)i will do more research and come back on this, if you wish.
point 2. You haven't shown that.
Please go here. please read the entire report. this was the link I was looking for earlier.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm
it will show that
a) the UK and the USA use the same system for counting all live births - like the USA, the UK does not cheat by excluding premature births. I forget the exact term , I think it's 'preterm births' in the report, but it means the same thing.
b) Britain, Germany and a lot of other European countries use the same yardstick as the USA - and get better results in terms of IMR.
Point 3.
I take your point that the USa leads the world on cancer care. However, what the Americans are doing seems to be screening and early diagnosis. no reason why a government initiate could not do this as well.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 1/6/10 15:49 (UTC)Mebbee not counting those uninsured types with higher cancer risks though poverty/smoking/work related ailments due to having been dragged up in poverty? (Can't all be white collar ye know) by way of not giving a full post-mortem? hell we all die of either asphyxiation or myocardial infarction right? wouldn't a "Quick and easy system" offer such instead of looking further?
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 1/6/10 18:36 (UTC)b) Britain, Germany and a lot of other European countries use the same yardstick as the USA - and get better results in terms of IMR.
...but also have fewer premature births, which feed into the whole thing - It's hard to tell where the Euro countries would be if they were counting premature births - the equalization only goes halfway.
I take your point that the USa leads the world on cancer care. However, what the Americans are doing seems to be screening and early diagnosis. no reason why a government initiate could not do this as well.
Then why don't they?
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 1/6/10 19:04 (UTC)concerning the question of 'why not' - I think it comes down to public attitutes.
yes, people can go for screening and tests in the UK - but do they?
In the USA, I would not mind betting that health insurance is only valid if you take regular healthchecks. people therefore have an incentive to check and check regularly. now, this does catch cancers early on, but we don't refuse people healthcare if they have not had a health check. So, maybe we can't get people to look after themselves as well as the States, where they may lose their cover if they don't have checkups.
I am just interested - in the UK, you get lower Life Insurance premiums if you are a non smoker. I wonder if you get lower health premiums too?
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 1/6/10 20:35 (UTC)We have more premature births because we're more confident in being able to bend that curve. We can save more births, so we're willing to bring a child into the world earlier.
In the USA, I would not mind betting that health insurance is only valid if you take regular healthchecks.
You'd bet wrong.
I am just interested - in the UK, you get lower Life Insurance premiums if you are a non smoker. I wonder if you get lower health premiums too?
Yes, in many cases.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 1/6/10 20:55 (UTC)i am not a doctor, but I know that birth is usually induced if the baby is well developed enough , and should have started to be born ,but hasn't.
we don't go inducing pemature birth, though. we let babies grow full term. If labour comes on all of a sudden , yes , we have incubators, but this is the result of an unexpected glitch - not some doctor trying to ' bend the curve'
babies are usually born at the end of 9 months , and there is a reason for that - it's harder to survive if you are born prematurely.
I cannot believe that doctors are saying " why wait? Lets do it now." That doesn't make any sense.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 1/6/10 21:03 (UTC)i am not a doctor, but I know that birth is usually induced if the baby is well developed enough , and should have started to be born ,but hasn't.
I'm not a doctor either, but my two cousins were premature births. They were developed enough to survive outside the womb early - that's all it indicates. And why? Because we have the technology and the ability to keep more babies healthy upon early birth, something the countries with socialized medicine largely lack.
I cannot believe that doctors are saying " why wait? Lets do it now." That doesn't make any sense.
At no point was I implying that doctors are trying to change the gestation period, just that they're more willing to avoid other complications for the sake of dealing with premature birth instead.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 2/6/10 07:17 (UTC)What sort of technology do you think we lack? My wife works in ITU, and this country has CAT scanners, ultrasound, ecgs, incubators, electricity, hot running water...there are even UK hospitals with special units for dealing with premature births. I don't think we lack anything you have stateside, and I would be surprised if Sweden did.
Seriously - I want to know what it's called so I can google it and find out where it is in the UK - coz I am sure I will find it in use in the NHS.
Some places with UHC may not be able to afford such stuff, but we have the 4th langest economy in the world. We have the cash and I'm sure we don't lack expertise.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 2/6/10 11:39 (UTC)You have them, but in less availability. That's why waiting lists are so damn long for the socialized nations.
Some places with UHC may not be able to afford such stuff, but we have the 4th langest economy in the world. We have the cash and I'm sure we don't lack expertise.
Even Canada's looking at cuts in their NHS now. The problem runs deep.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 2/6/10 17:40 (UTC)These are private health schemes. A lot of employers like to offer BUPA membership as a perk, rather like a company car. Werll, it's true in the UK - I dunno about other ' socialised' places like Sweden or Romania
Only the well off or well employed can get this of course - but tell me again, what do low income/no income people get Stateside these days?
As for waiting lists, yes, there are some , and they are horrendous for hip replacements.
However, I have yet to hear anyone sat to an expectant mother " sorry, we can't fit you in for a birth right now, you will have to wait till we free up some beds and a midwife".
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 2/6/10 21:31 (UTC)These are private health schemes. A lot of employers like to offer BUPA membership as a perk, rather like a company car. Werll, it's true in the UK - I dunno about other ' socialised' places like Sweden or Romania
Except, of course, the tax rates in place to pay for the health care you already have.
Only the well off or well employed can get this of course - but tell me again, what do low income/no income people get Stateside these days?
Well, seeing as 90% of citizens are insured, quite a bit more than the poor in your country.
As for waiting lists, yes, there are some , and they are horrendous for hip replacements.
However, I have yet to hear anyone sat to an expectant mother " sorry, we can't fit you in for a birth right now, you will have to wait till we free up some beds and a midwife".
I'm sure the cancer rates have nothing to do with the waiting lists.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 2/6/10 22:50 (UTC)Except, of course, the tax rates in place to pay for the health care you already have.
Well, if you want to fly in the fast lane , it costs extra.
in your country, there is the fast lane or no lane - except the one leading to the morgue , it seems.
Well, seeing as 90% of citizens are insured, quite a bit more than the poor in your country.
Wroooong !!! !00% of our citizens are covered by National Insurance. Ok, they may have to wait for hip replacements and stuff, but they do get it.
And your 90%... is it really as many as that? that's wonderful. Amazing.
But what happens to the 10% who dont have it, don't have anything at all, in fact?
They die, I guess...
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 2/6/10 23:10 (UTC)in your country, there is the fast lane or no lane - except the one leading to the morgue , it seems.
Again, what the American political left wants you to believe and what actually happens here are very different things.
Wroooong !!! !00% of our citizens are covered by National Insurance. Ok, they may have to wait for hip replacements and stuff, but they do get it.
They may have to wait for, you know, necessary procedures and stuff, but hey. Right? No big deal. People might die waiting, but at least they're guaranteed care...eventually.
But what happens to the 10% who dont have it, don't have anything at all, in fact?
They die, I guess...
No, they still can get care, they simply don't have insurance.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 2/6/10 23:16 (UTC)people are unlikely to die of arthititis...even in our climate.
No, they still can get care, they simply don't have insurance.
If they can get this care without insurance, and you don't have to pay for it, how come 90% do? Like, what's the advantage?
Again, what the American political left wants you to believe and what actually happens here are very different things.
Yhen maybe you would lik to tell us what actually does happen . in some detail. Taking in the number of Americans who go bankrupt as a result of paying or attempting to pay for medical bills?
Then again, maybe you would not...
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 2/6/10 23:31 (UTC)So you're into rationing care based on whatever metric you choose. At least you're honest.
If they can get this care without insurance, and you don't have to pay for it, how come 90% do? Like, what's the advantage?
Most people get it through their employer, and insurance here stupidly pays for things like doctor's visits, so it's pretty silly not to.
Yhen maybe you would lik to tell us what actually does happen . in some detail. Taking in the number of Americans who go bankrupt as a result of paying or attempting to pay for medical bills?
Very few on a whole. In the US, it's simple - generally speaking, you're insured in some way, you go to the hospital, you get care. It's pretty simple.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 3/6/10 00:23 (UTC)And this makes a news story? must be more than a couple of dozen , I guess, so how many would that be , precisely?
In the following excerpt the figure is cited. I can give you the link if you wish...
(CBS) You may think personal bankruptcies are the result of job loss or wild credit card spending.
But a new study published in The American Journal of Medicine says the biggest reason for going into bankruptcy is medical debt.
Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman reports the study says getting sick is a factor in 62 percent of personal bankruptcies -- an increase from just eight percent in 1981.
And among those who filed for bankruptcy, 75 percent reported having some type of medical insurance. But The Washington Post says people in bankruptcy with insurance were nearly $18,000 in the red. And those without insurance had an average of almost $27,000 in medical debt.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius pointed out on The Early Show Friday that many Americans who have health insurance have inadequate protection, and increasing out-of-pocket expenses are "crushing families and businesses."
"That’s why President Obama is so focused on health reform this year," she said, "lowering costs for those who have coverage already so that we can keep the coverage we have, keep the doctors we have, but also to provide some coverage and some payment for the millions of Americans -- close to 50 million -- who have no insurance coverage at all."
Sebelius said there's a bi-partisan effort in Congress is to create a "health exchange" the would provide a marketplace of coverage options for Americans. She said a public option would be side-by-side with private plans. She added the plans would give people with or without coverage a choice.
"Americans who have coverage they like (can) keep their coverage, (and it) will help employers move forward, she said. "But for others, they’d finally have a choice, and we'll have some competition in the market, which will lower more costs overall."
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 3/6/10 00:26 (UTC)Well, no. 62% of bankrupcties cite medical bills as part of their outstanding bills. By no means does that suggest that the bills are putting them under.
For more on the problems with that study, see this (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabeth-warren-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-utterly-misleading-bankruptcy-study/18826/) and this (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/why-warrens-new-bankruptcy-study-is-so-bad/18834/).
And this makes a news story? must be more than a couple of dozen , I guess, so how many would that be , precisely?
Easy - the media wants us to be angry at our health system.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 3/6/10 07:34 (UTC)that's 10% of how many million Americans?
So , what exactly happens if I need medical treatment and I am un insured in America?
Ok - I understand that Road traffic accident cases are taken in and stablised - but i have a life threatening illness, like cancer, say - or just need a hip replacement.
What is going to happen to me then ?
In the UK, I go into triage -
I will get treatment when i get to the front of the queue- and my coronary will get treated faster than my arthiritis, unless I go private.
So, how does this compare with no insurance across the pond?
Re: Not so fast...
From:Re: Not so fast...
From:Re: Not so fast...
From:Re: Not so fast...
From:Re: Not so fast...
From:Re: Not so fast...
From:Re: Not so fast...
From:Re: Not so fast...
Date: 2/6/10 22:52 (UTC)Main article: Uninsured in the United States
Some Americans do not qualify for government-provided health insurance, are not provided health insurance by an employer, and are unable to afford, cannot qualify for, or choose not to purchase, private health insurance. When charity or "uncompensated" care is not available, they sometimes simply go without needed medical treatment. This problem has become a source of considerable political controversy on a national level.
According to the US Census Bureau, in 2007, 45.7 million people in the U.S. (15.3% of the population) were without health insurance for at least part of the year. This number was down slightly from the previous year, with nearly 3 million more people receiving government coverage and a slightly lower percentage covered under private plans than the year previous.[1] Other studies have placed the number of uninsured in the years 2007-2008 as high as 86.7 million, about 29% of the US population.[2][3]
Among the uninsured population, the Census Bureau says, nearly 37 million were employment-age adults (ages 18 to 64), and more than 27 million worked at least part time. About 38% of the uninsured live in households with incomes of $50,000 or more.[1] According to the Census Bureau, nearly 36 million of the uninsured are legal U.S citizens. Another 9.7 million are non-citizens, but the Census Bureau does not distinguish in its estimate between legal non-citizens and illegal immigrants.[1] Nearly one fifth of the uninsured population is able to afford insurance, almost one quarter is eligible for public coverage, and the remaining 56% need financial assistance (8.9% of all Americans).[84] Extending coverage to all who are eligible remains a fiscal challenge.[85]
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 2/6/10 22:53 (UTC)Re: Not so fast...
Date: 2/6/10 23:10 (UTC)Re: Not so fast...
Date: 2/6/10 12:57 (UTC)In addition to our system's aggressive treatment of premature infants, many doctors in the US are unwilling to let a mother come to full term if she shows signs of diabetes, or of some other serious complications, like a breach presentation. They will induce labor a few weeks early both to relieve the pressure on the mother's health and to allow them to better control the infant's health. This counts toward "premature" births, even though the child is fully formed. The US also has very high rates of Caesarian section delivery, mostly due to concerns for the mother and child, some well founded, some not so much. A lot of people in the US think this is a perverse reaction to our tort law, doctors will practice "defensive" medicine to avoid malpractice suits. On the other hand, if the Caesarian option had been available to my mother in the 1960's not only would I have been C-section birth but my older sister wouldn't have died during her delivery four years before.
Re: Not so fast...
Date: 1/6/10 15:44 (UTC)Remind me once more why exactly Blighty screens every womans breasts (Within age and risk limits of course) when in all reality they benefit little more than if they were better educated to examine themselves regularly and go to the quack if they feel lumps/pain/problems??? yet again it's Political BS, "We are doing this for YOU", remove it, very few would die, lots of votes would be lost, lots of money would be saved, replace it with education needed, lives and money could be saved, but your votes would still be gone!