Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Rod Pemberton" Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth Subject: Re: OT: ObamaCare vs. Google Date: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 09:54:03 -0500 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 134 Message-ID: References: <1f417310-eee5-4c00-a34f-2efd28661a86@googlegroups.com> <99CdnV3zyb0X_grPnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@supernews.com> <5fqdnX7-qu_5gQXPnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@supernews.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: CNsg4fVcCsvs3UaOgZtQCw.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:27069 On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 23:47:30 -0500, Elizabeth D. Rather wrote: > On 11/28/13 3:24 PM, Rod Pemberton wrote: >> On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:38:50 -0500, Andrew Haley >> wrote: >>> Mark Wills wrote: >> The HuffingtonPost article complains about costs per person being too >> large in the US per person as compared to their lifetime. According >> to the article, those costs are the reason the US is an outlier. You >> understand that ObamaCare is *raising* costs per person, yes? We're >> going to be so far to the right we won't fit on the page! LOL. Did >> you _intend_ to cite that article Andrew? >> >> See? Costs go up: [links] > > Yeah, the conservative press has been preaching that for years. It's > only now that we're beginning to see actual figures. > ... and so far they confirm what the conservative press has said. >> 2) Despite the non-correlation with life expectancy, we have better >> quality of health care. If you live in the EU, would you go to >> Bulgaria, Croatia, Macedonia and Latvia for health care? If you >> live in the US, would you go to Canada or Mexico for health care? > > How do you define "better quality of health care" on a broad scale > *except* by looking at overall outcomes (in other words, life > expectancy)? There are many factors more important to quality of health care than life expectancy which has strong genetic and cultural components. E.g., deaths due to hospital error, contraction of contagious, high risk diseases while in the hospital, errors in prescriptions or procedures or operations leading to additional surgeries or deaths, etc. > The chart in question came from Organisation for Economic Co-operation > and Development (OECD), an international organization based in Paris. > The full report may be downloaded here: [link] > > A very similar study has been published by the World Health Organization > (WHO), [link] > Its findings cover more countries and are consistent with OECD's. Do you consider both of them to be non-biased towards EU politics and cultural beliefs given that they are both headquartered in the EU? AISI, they both promote a strong pro-EU agenda in everything. It's somewhat anti-US. >> 4) We have a large class of freeloaders who drive up costs. >> Hospitals can't refuse care in the US like they can in other >> countries (Canada, Japan). Their care is primarily via the >> emergency room instead of via scheduled doctor visits. Those >> higher costs of emergency room care are paid for by all of us. >> ObamaCare rolls these freeloaders into the system and provides >> all of them even more healthcare at our expense. > > I don't know much about Canada and Japan (although I have several > friends who live in Canada who prefer their health care system to > ours by a wide margin). I'm sure the guy who had to pull out his own rotting tooth didn't, nor the women coming to the US to birth children, nor the women coming to the US to have abortions. They're all Canadians. > But I'm curious about your definition of "freeloaders." They were described in the snipped paragraph. If you want a more of an economic definition, you can look up "free rider". See also "forced rider" for comparison. > I've spent a good deal of time in England, France, and > Belgium. I've been sick in all three places. Doctors treat anyone who > seeks treatment, without charge, unlike here. People are forced to go to > the emergency room in the US who don't have expensive health insurance. Yet, Medicaid was most likely available to them, but they didn't have it. > It is well-known in the medical community that people who are able to > seek treatment in early stages of disease (i.e., from a doc) will have a > better outcome at a much lower cost. True, but when healthcare is available, e.g., work, Medicare, Medicaid, etc, and someone doesn't go to the doctor is that a healthcare issue, or a personal freedom? I qualify that as a personal freedom. What about when someone could afford healthcare but doesn't? Same thing. What about someone able to work but doesn't? Same thing. So, we're always going to have people who are able to seek treatment, but don't, who could have healthcare if they wanted to, but don't. Your example only affects people who want treatment but can't get it, because they aren't willing to pay for healthcare, or didn't sign up for Medicaid, Medicare, etc. We'd have to make it illegal for people to not visit their doctors regularly to fix the issue you brought up which was not being treated early enough. What do you think about that? If everyone, except the poor who qualify for Medicaid, is forced to pay for health insurance, why shouldn't everyone be forced to go to the doctor under the same rationale? >> 5) Some countries have higher rates of death which reduces total >> costs of healthcare. The EU has death rates twice as high as >> the USA. South Africa has very high rates of death. Germany >> is actually exporting elderly to other countries to lower their >> healthcare costs. > > Death rates are 100% in all countries. Death is final, yes. However, death rates are not 100%. Death rates include the living, i.e., dead/living. So, it's a function of the population size and quantity of people dying. If the population is increasing, the death rate will decline even if the number of dying stays relatively constant for a while. If many people are dying now, be it old age or young and violent/tragic, the death rate increases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortality_rate > The question is, what is the average life span? Why? > I see 20 countries with longer average life spans than the US, many of > which are in the EU. If you move US back to underneath Finland, the age variation is only about four years for English speaking countries. Lifespan is affected by many things other than healthcare, like genetics, culture, work, smoking, drinking, etc. (See post to Andrew for more, not all inclusive.) Rod Pemberton