A Vicious Circle

rmsgrey wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
Exactly! My slight hyperbole aside, why make the change if improved efficacy cannot be proven?

If you're going to insist on proof that a given law will be effective in achieving its ostensible aim, before letting it be passed, there's not going to be many laws passed...

You make that sound like a bad thing. If the benefits of a law cannot persuade a sufficient majority, why pass the stupid thing? If the only laws left to pass will make things worse in the perception of the citizenry, why pass any new laws at all?

Not saying that is the case in the US. I am saying that this particular piece of shinola was a bad law and should not have been passed. Dump this POS and start from scratch.

I'd like to see statistics on the statement "You talk as though your health care and that of the rest of the western world generated as many innovations and cures as ours have. That is simply not true".
Fully concede that the US has pioneered many medical breakthroughs and has top notch researchers, but you'd expect that in a large and wealthy country. Many innovations come from the first world countries as well (penicillin, cochlear, HPV vaccine etc). Considering that there are 15 US citizens for each Australian, it may well be that we produce more innovation per person than you do. It is actually difficult to differentiate, as much research is done by international cooperation now. I probably should explain that most countries that have a welfare medical net also have private medical systems that you can pay to access, and often the public system pays to access them as well. I personally use a mixture in that our Medicare pays for my GP consultations, yet a family member recently had an operation in a private hospital that cost my health fund $22k. Our universities have medical research departments, just as yours do.
As to another quote "It amazes me that the same people who bitch about the US intervening in foreign countries are the same people who presume to impose their values on the US. If you don't like the US the way it is, stay away." my response is deal. Impossible for me to visit anyway as my wife is so vehemently opposed to so many US values and stances, she'd never agree. Pity, as I'd like to have seen some of your beautiful countryside.
One area we may well agree on is the excessive cost of many medical services. I've got no problem with a GP getting $50 a consultation out of which they have to pay staff, insurance, office expenses and so on, and I have no problem paying my oncologist (internationally recognised) about $125 a consultation; but some specialists here charge $300+ for a short consultation that often has no benefit.

The fastest way to lower the cost of medical care in the US would be to shoot every third civil attorney who brought a malpractice suit. The GP who treated me as a child went out of business because in the space of 5 years his malpractice insurance rose from $30,000 a year to almost $100,000. This in spite of the fact that he was never sued. His single doctor practice could no longer support the cost. It took thirty years to get a doctor to practice in the same neighborhood and took the building of three large retirement homes within 1/2 mile of his old practice to convince anyone to open an office. Even then, it had to be supported by the local hospital to be able to afford the insurance.

Most economists agree that the net contributions of ILLEGAL immigrants to the US economy is negative. At best they are low skilled workers who produce minimal economic output while consuming public benefits. They also depress wages for citizens and legal immigrants

I am glad to hear that your wife has such a visceral hatred of the US that I need not worry about you being tourist here. Please tell all of your friends and family that they too are unwelcome in the US. With any luck the next US President will withdraw from ANZUS and SEATO so you will not have to worry about the US intervening militarily in your region.

Daryl wrote:I'd like to see statistics on the statement "You talk as though your health care and that of the rest of the western world generated as many innovations and cures as ours have. That is simply not true".
Fully concede that the US has pioneered many medical breakthroughs and has top notch researchers, but you'd expect that in a large and wealthy country. Many innovations come from the first world countries as well (penicillin, cochlear, HPV vaccine etc). Considering that there are 15 US citizens for each Australian, it may well be that we produce more innovation per person than you do. It is actually difficult to differentiate, as much research is done by international cooperation now. I probably should explain that most countries that have a welfare medical net also have private medical systems that you can pay to access, and often the public system pays to access them as well. I personally use a mixture in that our Medicare pays for my GP consultations, yet a family member recently had an operation in a private hospital that cost my health fund $22k. Our universities have medical research departments, just as yours do.
As to another quote "It amazes me that the same people who bitch about the US intervening in foreign countries are the same people who presume to impose their values on the US. If you don't like the US the way it is, stay away." my response is deal. Impossible for me to visit anyway as my wife is so vehemently opposed to so many US values and stances, she'd never agree. Pity, as I'd like to have seen some of your beautiful countryside.
One area we may well agree on is the excessive cost of many medical services. I've got no problem with a GP getting $50 a consultation out of which they have to pay staff, insurance, office expenses and so on, and I have no problem paying my oncologist (internationally recognised) about $125 a consultation; but some specialists here charge $300+ for a short consultation that often has no benefit.

Be nice Fly. I didn't use the term visceral hatred, just pointed out that she has markedly different values than those espoused by the US right. I'm sure that the US in general would welcome my friends, family and I; as I have met and liked many US citizens over the years. You aren't likely to be there personally to oppose my entry.
As to military cooperation, the US has had good value from us over the years, as we have joined in way too many "coalitions of the willing" in supporting your many invasions (more than any other I think). Might not have contributed a whole lot militarily, but politically have eased the situation by lending a somewhat dubious respectability. Plus we allow you to have secure bases on our territory.

namelessfly wrote:The US already had an excellent healthcare system that was mostly funded through private insurance that was usually a benefit of employment but with government funded Medicare and Medicaid to pay for the elderly and poor. It worked very well. The only seriously uninsured were illegal immigrants. Why should we transform our healthcare system to meet the needs of illegal aliens rather than deport them?

You have an excellent health care system for those who can afford it. Still, you have about47 million uninsured, the bulk of which are US citizens, not illegals (caveat - I'm not familiar with the site, it was just the first result on Google, but the figures agree with numbers I've seen elsewhere).

It amazes me that the same people who bitch about the US intervening in foreign countries are the same people who presume to impose their values on the US. If you don't like the US the way it is, stay away.

No-one is imposing its values on the US, they're just suggesting how they think the US could improve itself. And frankly, you guys tend to do the same much more often.

Again the devil is in the details. Even at the state level. CO set 11 districts here are the results.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/governme ... transcript

Actually I don't think the data they present supports the tourists(mostly US citizens, I think) are at fault.

$67k for an average income is way above US average. But the 21% that are uninsured can't afford the coverage provided under ACA even with the subsidies.

TAMARA DRANGSTVEIT, Family and Intercultural Resource Center: wrote: Every single one of them for whom we have gotten to the point of actually looking at the rates has taken one look and walked out the door. It's just prohibitive to them.

So how exactly is this better. Paraphrase from the article "But it just needs to be tweaked." Never heard this before. Though at least this person acknowledged that the tweak would cost someplace else.

Actually a rather good article in my opinion.

Enjoyable thoughts,
T2M

Eyal wrote:You have an excellent health care system for those who can afford it. Still, you have about47 million uninsured, the bulk of which are US citizens, not illegals (caveat - I'm not familiar with the site, it was just the first result on Google, but the figures agree with numbers I've seen elsewhere).

...snip...

Daryl wrote:I'd like to see statistics on the statement "You talk as though your health care and that of the rest of the western world generated as many innovations and cures as ours have. That is simply not true".
Fully concede that the US has pioneered many medical breakthroughs and has top notch researchers, but you'd expect that in a large and wealthy country. Many innovations come from the first world countries as well (penicillin, cochlear, HPV vaccine etc). Considering that there are 15 US citizens for each Australian, it may well be that we produce more innovation per person than you do. It is actually difficult to differentiate, as much research is done by international cooperation now. I probably should explain that most countries that have a welfare medical net also have private medical systems that you can pay to access, and often the public system pays to access them as well. I personally use a mixture in that our Medicare pays for my GP consultations, yet a family member recently had an operation in a private hospital that cost my health fund $22k. Our universities have medical research departments, just as yours do.
As to another quote "It amazes me that the same people who bitch about the US intervening in foreign countries are the same people who presume to impose their values on the US. If you don't like the US the way it is, stay away." my response is deal. Impossible for me to visit anyway as my wife is so vehemently opposed to so many US values and stances, she'd never agree. Pity, as I'd like to have seen some of your beautiful countryside.
One area we may well agree on is the excessive cost of many medical services. I've got no problem with a GP getting $50 a consultation out of which they have to pay staff, insurance, office expenses and so on, and I have no problem paying my oncologist (internationally recognised) about $125 a consultation; but some specialists here charge $300+ for a short consultation that often has no benefit.

Alright, Daryl, here is that cite.

http://history1900s.about.com/library/misc/blnobelmed.htm

I use the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine as a proxy for innovations. The correlation between winning the prize and acutal innovations isn't perfect but close enough for government work in the US.

Since 1901 there have been 199 winners: US-99 and Rest of world-100. The predominance of US winners came after 1950. Here is a breakdown.

----------------US----Rest of World
1901-2011----99----100
1901-1950-------13----43
1951-1979-------42----25
1980-2011-------42----31

Population-----------US-----------Total World
1900 population 76,212,168 1,700,000,000
4.5%
2013 Population 317,022,000 7,122,900,000
4.5%

Economy---------------------US------------Total World
GDP 2013 (millions) 15,684,800 71,666,350
World Bank 21.9%

GDP 1980 (millions) 2,862,475 11,471,357
IMF 25.0%

As you can see the US economy has been roughly 20%-25% of the world economy for the past 30 years. Prior to that it might have been higher as the rest of the world rebuilt from WWII. The US population has remained at about 4.5% of the world population for the past 110 years or so.

So in the past 30 years the US has produced 42 of the 73 Nobel Prize winners in Physiology and Medicine. The rest of the world produced 31. That means our 4.5% of the world population using between 20%-25% of world economic output produced 57.5% of the Nobel Prize winners in Medicine.

I stand by my statements. I like the innovations in medicine our old system produced and don't see enough proof that a change will benefit us more to make a change.

The goal of helping the poor buy insurance can be achieved without risking the rest of the system. Only 53% of the uninsured fall below 2x the poverty level. That's $23,000 for a single wage earner or $47,000 for a family of 4. That's only 22 million or so and medicaide can be expanded to help them. Heck, subsidies to help they buy insurance would be less expensive and less risky to the innovation engine we had. The remaining insinsured or another 22 million people DO NOT WANT IT. They took the gamble that they will not fall sick and so did not purchase healthcare insurance. That is their right in a free society.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm#age
http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Eligibility/Downloads/2013-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf

Again, my point holds. The cost to making these changes are not sufficient for most Americans to adopt a completely new system that has been shown to produce fewer innovations/break-throughs per given level of resources. We in the US are happy to let the rest of the world enjoy the fruits of our labor. But to produce such fruit we need a system that rewards innovation. This POS Obamacare will not.

Just an interesting point about the nobel prizes though. in the 28 yeras between 51 and 79, the US won 42 nobels against the worlds 25. In the next time period of 31 years, with a higher popualtion, the Us won the same amount while the worlds total increased by 7. So The US dropped in nobels per capita or per year.

PeterZ wrote:

Daryl wrote:I'd like to see statistics on the statement "You talk as though your health care and that of the rest of the western world generated as many innovations and cures as ours have. That is simply not true".
Fully concede that the US has pioneered many medical breakthroughs and has top notch researchers, but you'd expect that in a large and wealthy country. Many innovations come from the first world countries as well (penicillin, cochlear, HPV vaccine etc). Considering that there are 15 US citizens for each Australian, it may well be that we produce more innovation per person than you do. It is actually difficult to differentiate, as much research is done by international cooperation now. I probably should explain that most countries that have a welfare medical net also have private medical systems that you can pay to access, and often the public system pays to access them as well. I personally use a mixture in that our Medicare pays for my GP consultations, yet a family member recently had an operation in a private hospital that cost my health fund $22k. Our universities have medical research departments, just as yours do.
As to another quote "It amazes me that the same people who bitch about the US intervening in foreign countries are the same people who presume to impose their values on the US. If you don't like the US the way it is, stay away." my response is deal. Impossible for me to visit anyway as my wife is so vehemently opposed to so many US values and stances, she'd never agree. Pity, as I'd like to have seen some of your beautiful countryside.
One area we may well agree on is the excessive cost of many medical services. I've got no problem with a GP getting $50 a consultation out of which they have to pay staff, insurance, office expenses and so on, and I have no problem paying my oncologist (internationally recognised) about $125 a consultation; but some specialists here charge $300+ for a short consultation that often has no benefit.

Alright, Daryl, here is that cite.

http://history1900s.about.com/library/misc/blnobelmed.htm

I use the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine as a proxy for innovations. The correlation between winning the prize and acutal innovations isn't perfect but close enough for government work in the US.

Since 1901 there have been 199 winners: US-99 and Rest of world-100. The predominance of US winners came after 1950. Here is a breakdown.

----------------US----Rest of World
1901-2011----99----100
1901-1950-------13----43
1951-1979-------42----25
1980-2011-------42----31

Population-----------US-----------Total World
1900 population 76,212,168 1,700,000,000
4.5%
2013 Population 317,022,000 7,122,900,000
4.5%

Economy---------------------US------------Total World
GDP 2013 (millions) 15,684,800 71,666,350
World Bank 21.9%

GDP 1980 (millions) 2,862,475 11,471,357
IMF 25.0%

As you can see the US economy has been roughly 20%-25% of the world economy for the past 30 years. Prior to that it might have been higher as the rest of the world rebuilt from WWII. The US population has remained at about 4.5% of the world population for the past 110 years or so.

So in the past 30 years the US has produced 42 of the 73 Nobel Prize winners in Physiology and Medicine. The rest of the world produced 31. That means our 4.5% of the world population using between 20%-25% of world economic output produced 57.5% of the Nobel Prize winners in Medicine.

I stand by my statements. I like the innovations in medicine our old system produced and don't see enough proof that a change will benefit us more to make a change.

The goal of helping the poor buy insurance can be achieved without risking the rest of the system. Only 53% of the uninsured fall below 2x the poverty level. That's $23,000 for a single wage earner or $47,000 for a family of 4. That's only 22 million or so and medicaide can be expanded to help them. Heck, subsidies to help they buy insurance would be less expensive and less risky to the innovation engine we had. The remaining insinsured or another 22 million people DO NOT WANT IT. They took the gamble that they will not fall sick and so did not purchase healthcare insurance. That is their right in a free society.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/05/uninsured-cps/index.htm#age
http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Eligibility/Downloads/2013-Federal-Poverty-level-charts.pdf

Again, my point holds. The cost to making these changes are not sufficient for most Americans to adopt a completely new system that has been shown to produce fewer innovations/break-throughs per given level of resources. We in the US are happy to let the rest of the world enjoy the fruits of our labor. But to produce such fruit we need a system that rewards innovation. This POS Obamacare will not.