SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ichy Smith who wrote (206568)10/19/2006 8:21:12 PM
From: SiouxPal  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
You say "Demoncrats". I wish you were a whale in Alaska.
Your party would shoot you right in your noggin'. Then they'd boil you down for oil.
Have you no shame sir?



To: Ichy Smith who wrote (206568)10/19/2006 9:01:35 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
"Admit it the Democratic party Blew its chance the bring the US Medicare because it failed to vote in favor of it's own legislation. That is just too funny. No wonder the voters whacked you like a bunch of skunks."

Actually, I agree with you here Itchy. It wasn't as simple as you paint it, as powerful entrenched special interests with money to lose in the "pay for health" industries actually bought millions of dollars of TV advertising nationwide against the proposal, and the plan was overly complex in attempting to get everyone onboard, but then, you're a simple person. A simpleton, if you will.

The Dems deserved to lose in 1994 for this, and I think it's why they DID lose congress, as most Americans actually WANTED universal healthcare. Much as the Repugnicans deserve to lose THIS election, for a host of reasons. Both parties suck, but the Repugnicans are worse.

It doesn't change the fact that the Dems are the ONLY party that will bring universal healthcare to Americans. Nevertheless, I applaud your actually doing some digging and LEARNING something on your own. Bravo!



To: Ichy Smith who wrote (206568)10/20/2006 12:50:54 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 281500
 
NEWS: Cuba Has Better Medical Care Than the U.S.
Statistics don't lie.
huffingtonpost.com
04.23.2006

Figures from the World Health Organization clearly show that The United States lags behind 36 other countries in overall health system performance ranging from infant mortality, to adult mortality, to life expectancy.

20 countries in Europe and four countries in Asia have a better life expectancy than the U.S. If you are a male between the ages of 15 and 59, your chances of dying are higher in the U.S. (140 per thousand) than in Canada, 95, Costa Rica 127, Chile 134, and Cuba, 138.

The U.S. Health system looks especially dysfunctional when you consider how much money we spend per capita on healthcare -- $6,000 plus per year, twice as much as any other country -- and how little we get for it.

Canada spends $2,163 and boasts a life expectancy of 79.8 years, two and a half years longer than the US. Their infant mortality rate per thousand is also better than ours, as is their adult mortality rate.

Switzerland spends about 11% of its Gross Domestic Product on universal health care for all its citizens, while the U.S. (with 50 million uninsured this year) spends 15% of GDP with embarrassing results.

One grand irony, Cuba whose economy has been bankrupt for the last decade -- food shortages, drug shortages, chronic unemployment, etc. -- and which annually spends a miserly $185 per person on health care, has better infant and adult mortality rates than the US, and has a life expectancy nearly equal to ours.

Why has our vaunted free enterprise system -- which has produced such great benefits in delivery of most goods and services -- failed so completely with regard to this most fundamental need?

Simple, buyers don't shop for health care. Sick people don't negotiate with doctors or hospitals or drug companies. They don't care what it costs; insurance or the government will pay. This vulnerability has been exploited and hijacked by greedy doctors, drug companies, insurers, personal injury lawyers, HMOs, and hospitals. About 50% of health care funds never even get to doctors or hospitals -- which themselves run bloated operations.

Maybe we have finally reached the "Tipping Point". Not because people are needlessly dying, but because big business is being crippled by astronomical health costs.

US companies -- with employer funded health plans -- are having a hard time competing in world markets. General Motors spends more on worker health care ($1,400 per vehicle) than they spend on steel for each car they produce. "The three big auto makers are "HMOs on wheels" says Goldman Sachs analyst Gary Lapidus.

Employer funded health insurance is a relic of the past according to the growing clamor by big business. We don't want to pay for it any more and the added costs make our products uncompetitive in world markets.

The new Massachusetts law mandating health insurance -- just as the state requires auto insurance -- is a bold leap into an uncertain future, but it is an ad hoc band-aid which hopefully will lead to something more.

The long-term answer is obvious. Adopt a single-payer system like Canada's. Not socialized medicine. Doctors would remain private. By cutting out the bureaucracy, needless lawsuits, and curbing greed, the US could save 50% of the monies now being squandered, more than enough to cover the 50 million uninsured, according to a General Accounting Office and Congressional Budget Office report.

Ironically, we already have a successful single-payer healthcare program. Medicare, which covers people over 65, has an administrative and overhead cost of just 2%. Compare this low figure with the $399 billion spent on administrative middleman services in the free-market sector of health care last year. The simple step of data sharing of medical records could save $140 billion per year according too a recent Federal study.

Critics charge that a single-payer system would lead to a rationing of medicine and long waits. But we already ration medicine, not by need, or efficacy of the treatment, but by how much money you have. If you are rich, you can have all you want. If you are poor, unemployed, self-employed, sorry. 18,000 Americans die each year for lack of care according to the Institute of Medicine.

The right says that single-payer systems have not been adequately tested. But this is an obvious pretext by for-profit interest groups. Single-payer systems have been worked for many decades in 20 countries around the world.

The facts are clear: single-payer systems work and they save money. The Germans, French, Australians, Swiss, and Canadians all benefit from universal healthcare at less than half the cost that Americans pay for an incomplete system. Our for-profit healthcare system is a gambling scheme with the explicit goal of excluding the sick.

Good luck Massachusetts. Maybe your example, big business, and growing outrage will goad the dithering federal government into action.

Someday, inevitably, America will join the civilized world and provide universal care. It should be sooner rather than later.



To: Ichy Smith who wrote (206568)10/20/2006 12:52:55 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 281500
 
NEWS: Poor Little Greece Has Better Health Care than the U.S.
New York Times, 2006
10.18.2006
huffingtonpost.com

One of the main indices of the success of a nation or its government is the health of its citizens. Life expectancy is the most verifiable statistic to determine this. Considering the U.S.'s dismal health care performance, this should be a major election issue. But it is not.

A fascinating article today by David Leonhardt (one of the New York Times' best and most interesting writers) picked up a theme I wrote about three months ago (Cuba Has Better Medical Care Than the U.S.).

John Econopouly had identical hernia operations in Northern California and Greece giving him a chance to do his own little comparative study of American and European medicine, according to Leonhardt.

The U.S. surgery didn't go so well.

After spending a few hours in the hospital as an outpatient, Mr. Econopouly went to a friend's house to sleep off the surgery and found that his wound had reopened. "I woke up in a pool of blood and didn't know what to do," he remembered. "Basically, I didn't feel cared for."

"For this, he paid more than $2,000 over and above the thousands of dollars that his insurance policy paid."

The Greece medical care a few months later was much more thorough than it had been in the United States. "He spent the day before the operation undergoing tests, including one that discovered a heart murmur, and the day after the operation in the hospital being observed. Although he didn't have Greek health insurance, his final bill was only $700."

Compared to the money we spend, the U.S. health system is an appalling, inefficient disaster that neither political party has been able to address.

Most developed countries do a much better job, at a cheaper cost, of keeping their citizens from needlessly dying, according to most studies.

Figures from the World Health Organization clearly show that The United States lags behind 36 other countries in overall health system performance ranging from infant mortality, to adult mortality, to life expectancy.

20 countries in Europe and four countries in Asia have a better life expectancy than the U.S. If you are a male between the ages of 15 and 59 your chances of dying are higher in the U.S. (140 per thousand) than in Canada (95), Costa Rica (127), Chile (134), and Cuba (138).

The U.S. Health system looks especially dysfunctional when you consider how much money we spend per capita - about $6,000 per year for health care, twice as much as any other country - and how little we get for it.

In Greece, according to Leonhardt, the government and individuals spend about $2,300 per capita on health care each year, and the average life expectancy is 79 years. In the United States, we spend more than $6,000, yet life expectancy is below 78.

Canada spends $2,163 and boasts a life expectancy two and a half years longer than the U.S.

Switzerland spends about 11% of its Gross Domestic Product on universal health care for all its citizens, while the U.S. (with 47 million uninsured) spends 15% of GDP with embarrassing results.

Why has our vaunted, free enterprise system - which has produced such great benefits in delivery of most goods and services - failed so completely with regard to this most fundamental need?

One answer is that health care doesn't seem to be amenable to some of the basic rules of supply and demand that govern other consumer transactions. Sick people don't negotiate with doctors or hospitals or drug companies.

This vulnerability has been exploited and hijacked by greedy doctors, drug companies, insurers, personal injury lawyers, HMOs, and hospitals. About 50% of health care funds never even get to doctors or hospitals -which themselves run bloated operations.

The crisis has become especially acute during the past four years. Ordinary people cannot afford these grossly inflated prices, which for some families total more than $20,000 per year. 47 million Americans, including 6 million children, are not covered by health insurance and this number grows by a million and a half each year.

Even big business is now being hobbled by astronomical healthcare costs and U.S. companies are having a hard time competing in world markets. General Motors spends more on worker health care ($1,500 per vehicle) than they spend on steel for each car they produce. "The three big auto makers are 'HMOs on wheels'," says Goldman Sachs analyst Gary Lapidus.

What is true is that our country has the best medicine in the world with the best doctors, the newest techniques, the latest high tech machines, and the best drugs. Wealthy people from all over the world come to the U.S. for the most advanced treatment and pay cash.

The best U.S. health care is very good for rich foreigners and wealthy Americans and unavailable to millions of ordinary citizens.

What a disgrace.

-Blake Fleetwood
jfleetwood@aol.com



To: Ichy Smith who wrote (206568)10/20/2006 12:54:11 AM
From: sylvester80  Respond to of 281500
 
NEWS: GOP Ignores Rising Number of Uninsured
September 22, 2006

The Republican-led Congress is set to go home in five business days, leaving a number of important legislative priorities undone and a host of issues unresolved. After 12 years of Republican Congressional rule, the GOP puts politics ahead of what's good for America and are ineffective at dealing with the problems that American families face. It is no wonder that Americans are fed up with Republican leadership in Congress and now favor Democratic control. The latest CBS News/New York Times poll found that two-thirds of Americans "said Congress had accomplished less than it typically does in a two-year session; most said they could not name a single major piece of legislation that cleared this Congress. Just 25 percent said they approved of the way Congress was doing its job." [New York Times, 9/21/06]

The Democratic National Committee will highlight these legislative failures every day until Congress recesses.

Over the last five years, with Republican control of the White House and Congress, the numbers of the uninsured have swelled. With only a few days remaining in this legislative session, the nearly 46 million uninsured Americans are still waiting for help from the Republican-controlled Congress.

Nearly 47 Million Americans Are Uninsured - Increasing for the Fifth Year in a Row. The number of Americans lacking health insurance increased by 1.3 million last year -- and by 6.8 million since Bush took office in 2001. Today, a total of 46.6 million people are uninsured -- roughly one in seven Americans. [U.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06; Table HI-4]

The Number of Uninsured Is Equal to the Combined Populations of 24 States and the District of Columbia. In order to provide some perspective on the sheer magnitude of the problem of the uninsured, the number of Americans who are denied health insurance is equal to the combined populations of 24 states and the District of Columbia. The states include: Oregon, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, Kansas, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. [Census Bureau Population Estimates, Table GCT-T1-R]

The Number of Uninsured Children Increased By 361,000 Over the Past Year; Rate of Uninsured Children Rose for First Time in Five Years. The number of children without health insurance increased to 8.3 million this year - a 361,000 increase over the past year. Over 21.9 percent of Hispanic children and 12.5 percent of African American children lack health insurance. [U.S. Census Bureau, 8/29/06]

democrats.org