Can't We All Be Friends?

by Joy

This is an open thread!

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm and is filed under Random Stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

114 Responses to “Can't We All Be Friends?”

don provan Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Alas, I am not a doctor, a biologist or a medical researcher.

Dang the luck! So we've got a problem: the people that actually know how to investigate such things are, for unknown reasons but definitely not because they know more about it than you do, refusing to investigate the ideas that you, who have no expertise at all in the relevant fields but definitely do know the answer, think they should. Go figure!

I think they're missing something extremely pertinent to their whole reason for being.

So what we need are philosophers and metaphysicians to show them the light! I don't suppose you have any expertise in that field? Otherwise, I fear we might run into philosophers and metaphysicans that, for unknown reasons but definitely not because of they know more than you do, also refuse to consider the possibility any more than they already have.

I sure as heck don't know why, but I suspect fear.

If you don't know why, couldn't it because of they're right? It's hard for me to imagine that they are all, every single one of them, afraid of who knows what or otherwise faulty.

Comment by don provan — December 2, 2008 @ 9:16 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Hereis a comparative study of health care systems by the University of Maine from 2001. I know it is a little out of date. Table 1 shows that US spent twice as much as France per capita on health care. France ranked as best overall performer, and US as 37. So much for the free market.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2008 @ 9:27 pm

Rob R. Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Possible Mechanism For Creating 'Handedness' In Biological Molecules:

[... S]cientists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory have discovered a way to induce this handedness in pre-biological molecules.

"Understanding how the molecules necessary for life originated is one of the most basic scientific questions in biochemistry," Argonne chemist Richard Rosenberg said. "Chirality plays a fundamental role in biological processes and researchers have been trying to discover the mechanisms that led to this property for years."

Rosenberg used X-rays from the Advanced Photon Source to bombard chiral molecules adsorbed on a magnetic substrate and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy to track changes in the molecular bonds.

He found that changing the magnetization direction in relation to the high-intensity X-ray beam created an excess of one chirality over another. Changing the magnetization direction reverses the spin polarization of the secondary, or low-energy, electrons emitted from the substance.

Plants display 'molecular amnesia'

Many organisms, from worms to humans to plants, have learned to tame transposons by epigentically "silencing" them: if they can't express their genes they can't jump. If they can't jump for long enough, their DNA sequence slowly accumulates errors, and they become molecular fossils. Most transposons in most organisms are silenced in this way, but some remain quite active.

In previous studies from the laboratory of two of the article's authors, UC Berkeley professors Damon Lisch and Michael Freeling, with the support of the National Science Foundation at UC Berkeley, epigenetic silencing was triggered in maize. Once triggered, the maize plant "remembers," and keeps the transposon "silenced" generation after generation, even after the trigger is lost.

"However, we have found that at some positions in the genome, this is not the case. At these positions, although the trigger works fine, and the transposon is silenced, once the trigger is lost, the transposon reawakens," said Jaswinder Singh, a professor in the Plant Sciences Department at McGill University, and lead author of the new article. The study, "A Position Effect on the Heritability of Epigenetic Silencing," was published in October in the journal PLoS Genetics.

This "molecular amnesia" has never before been documented in plants and no one has seen it associated with a particular position in the genome of any species before. These data suggest the epigenetic landscape of plant genomes may be more subtle and interesting than previously thought, with the ability to remember epigenetic silencing varying depending on position.

"This may relate to the degree to which a given gene or group of genes must be reprogrammed each generation," Singh said. "We can now use transposons to probe for variations in the epigenetic landscape of the maize genome. It may turn out that forgetting can be as important as remembering. Our findings suggest that erasure of heritable information may be an important component of epigenetic machinery."

Comment by Rob R. — December 2, 2008 @ 9:29 pm

Joy Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:00 pm
provan:

Dang the luck! So we've got a problem: the people that actually know how to investigate such things are, for unknown reasons but definitely not because they know more about it than you do, refusing to investigate the ideas that you, who have no expertise at all in the relevant fields but definitely do know the answer, think they should. Go figure!

Sigh. You treat this knowledge with such disdain, don. Why is that? I remember when they sentenced me to slow death, and the behaviors of all the adults in my life in regards to that. They gave up on me, just like the doctors did. No hope, bye-bye.

Well, I didn't die. I wasn't ready to die, didn't intend to die, and wasn't going to put up with dying at the ripe old age of 7. Made a deal with my next-door neighbor, who also had cancer (did I mention clusters?). She gave me art lessons during the day when she felt good, bought wonderful supplies and taught me a great deal. We had big screened porches, officer's housing on the base at Charleston. When she felt well enough, she'd ring a crystal bell, which I could hear from my porch, where they usually ensconsed me to get me out of the way. I missed an entire year of school.

I told her that if I died first, I'd plead her case to Jesus so she might live. She promised me the same thing. In the course of months she did die. Nobody told me, but how can you miss all that activity next door? Guess they all thought I was stupid, despite my interaction with "The Vampires" at the Naval Hospital who never got enough of my blood. I was very sad, but hopeful at the same time that she'd keep her promise to me.

I began getting well immediately. And I mean within a week, I was cancer-free. I thanked her and Jesus in my prayers for years, until life got the better of me and I lapsed in that ritual. I went into science, applications of physics and such. But I formulated the conviction that, given what little I'd learned about biology in high school and college (and cancer-causing effects of nasty radiation), that what I experienced – besides being a genuine miracle – was the result of perfectly natural biological process counteracting perfectly unnatural biological processes that caused cancer in the first place.

I don't think that's so bizarre at all. I think it's quite reasonable, and that medical researchers should pay attention and follow those who do experience spontaneous remission, to map their gene expression profiles now that we know there are such things. It wouldn't be less useful or promising than journeys to the South Seas to map crustaceans or such, and finally… finally! We might expect something really useful for the money we've worked hard to earn and invest.

I'm sorry to see that you can't understand this. That's a large shame.

Comment by Joy — December 2, 2008 @ 10:00 pm

Joy Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:05 pm
P.S. to Don – That experience happened half a century ago. 50 years – that's a chunk from anybody's lifetime. We didn't know then what we know or are capable of knowing now. Shouldn't they have begun paying attention now that they can?

Comment by Joy — December 2, 2008 @ 10:05 pm

Bradford Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Here is a comparative study of health care systems by the University of Maine from 2001. I know it is a little out of date. Table 1 shows that US spent twice as much as France per capita on health care. France ranked as best overall performer, and US as 37. So much for the free market.

If you are assuming the U.S. healthcare system operates within a free market your subsequent analyses will be skewed by your initial misperception. I'll use a simple example supplied to me by my wife who once worked in an emergency room. Hospitals care for all admitted patients regardless of ability to pay. That is not a consequence of a business decision made within a free market system. Rather it is imposed as a legally binding responsibility. The source of the impetus behind the law is obvious even as its consequences are unintended. One consequence is that hospitals throughout the U.S. are stuck with billions in debt due to the necessity to care for a large number of undocumented aliens- something not a comparable experience to other countries touted as models. If you are going to compare France and other nations to the U.S you cannot ignore unique circumstances which render analogies trivial.

Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2008 @ 10:12 pm

Bradford Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Joy, I have two cats (from the same litter) with us since they were kittens. They are very similar to the kittens in your picture. I'll have to show it to my daughter.

Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2008 @ 10:17 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
If you are going to compare France and other nations to the U.S you cannot ignore unique circumstances which render analogies trivial.

Now, now, Bradford. Are you saying the University of Maine's study is not objective? France has its share of illegal immigrants from North Africa and Eastern Europe. The study is not an analogy. It is based on figures supplied, presumably, from the statistics information departments of the countries listed.

…billions in debt due to the necessity to care for a large number of undocumented aliens…

Might be better to regularize them then and collect taxes from them rather than allowing them to be employed as cheap disposable labour.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2008 @ 10:27 pm

Bradford Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:45 pm
If you are going to compare France and other nations to the U.S you cannot ignore unique circumstances which render analogies trivial.

Now, now, Bradford. Are you saying the University of Maine's study is not objective? France has its share of illegal immigrants from North Africa and Eastern Europe. The study is not an analogy. It is based on figures supplied, presumably, from the statistics information departments of the countries listed.

Respectfully, the immigration experiences of France are not comparable in magnitude to that occurring within the U.S. I just listened to Bill Bennett, an articulate political analyst within the U.S. He spoke of the "gate test." If gates are put up on the borders of a nation which way does the traffic flow? The answer to that question tells you more about the country in question than all the pundits combined. When the gates went up in East Germany people fled out of the country at risk of being shot. When the fences go up along the U.S border they are tunneled under, jumped over, and poked through so people can flow in. The ocean gate is the home of many dead Cubans, Haitains and other nationals seeking to get in, not out. Health care is a serious problem. But it requires thoughtful solutions, not blind allegiance to the pledges of political candidates for office.

…billions in debt due to the necessity to care for a large number of undocumented aliens…

Might be better to regularize them then and collect taxes from them rather than allowing them to be employed as cheap disposable labour.

You'd have to legalize most of the third world. The flow is endless.

Comment by Bradford — December 2, 2008 @ 10:45 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Obviously, immigration is a huge concern for you, Bradford. It most probably is causing the economic meltdown, too. And they'll be breeding pretty damn fast. Nonetheless, I suggest that the way the US funds and distributes its healthcare may not be the most efficient.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 2, 2008 @ 10:52 pm

Bradford Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:09 am
Alan Fox: Obviously, immigration is a huge concern for you, Bradford.

It is an important issue.

It most probably is causing the economic meltdown, too.

No, that's a consequence of greed and a belief that government funding solves all problems.

And they'll be breeding pretty damn fast.

You love those stereotypes don't you? Last month my uncle introduced me to a Haitain couple who are members of his church. The husband is a naturalized USC who works seven days a week and makes six figure income. The wife is here illegally after having arrived in Florida via raft. A nice couple with two kids. I wish native born Americans were more like this family.

Nonetheless, I suggest that the way the US funds and distributes its healthcare may not be the most efficient.

You're right. My only point so far is that our healthcare failings are not attributable to the free market.

Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2008 @ 12:09 am

Joy Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 am
Bradford:

I have two cats (from the same litter) with us since they were kittens. They are very similar to the kittens in your picture. I'll have to show it to my daughter.

The picture reminded me of kitten/cats I've known and loved. Lost one just recently, a white kitten my grandson was given for graduation. I wanted to name him "hawk-bait" for the very reason that he was stark white and obvious hawk-bait, he though I was overdramatizing. A hawk got him, in the end.

Remember a tabby named Buster Kitten, whom our giant mutant mountain poodle Beau nursed for way too long (Buster would suck on a dreadlock on Beau's neck, never ceased to amaze me). He'd stalk the deer under the pear tree like he was a serious hunter. When he'd get close enough to start the "ready to spring" situating, the deer would leap straight up into the air (they knew he was there all along, since he wasn't exactly invisible), and run up to the ridge. I asked him what he'd do with a deer if he ever caught one. Had visions in my head of him hanging on to a rear leg for dear life, and it always made me laugh out loud.

Life and death are close relatives out here in the hinterlands. Which is why I tend to see issues in a different way than you do. But it's nice (and I am glad) that I can consider you my friend.

Comment by Joy — December 3, 2008 @ 12:30 am

Bradford Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:07 am
Joy: Life and death are close relatives out here in the hinterlands. Which is why I tend to see issues in a different way than you do. But it's nice (and I am glad) that I can consider you my friend.

I live in the most populous state in the nation between NYC and Philadelphia but think the heart and soul of this country I love is best shown by those living in smaller towns and rural areas. They were immortalized by de Tocqueville and have been our backbone since then. You have a big, brave heart with plenty of room for a caring spirit inside.

Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2008 @ 1:07 am

Guts Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:52 am
Feh, you live in the armpit of america

Comment by Guts — December 3, 2008 @ 2:52 am

Alan Fox Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:48 am
You love those stereotypes don't you?

Good grief, Bradford. You are the one blaming the deficiencies of the US health care system on immigration. I was being ironic. I might just have well said "and illegal immigration causes global warming too". It is an ironic way of saying "I think your blaming the scapegoat of illegal immigrants for the deficiencies of the US healthcare system is probably wrong but does not affect the issue that there may be a better approach to healthcare."

I wish native born Americans were more like this family.

So is it illegals or Native Americans? Imagine a "rolls eyes" smiley here.

You do think your health care system could be improved?

You don't think universal health care is desirable?

Other countries appear to achieve it at much less cost. Or are you sceptical of the objectivity of the report?

If the only system you have runs on free market principals, how can you claim that its failings cannot be, in some measure, attributable to the free market?

Comment by Alan Fox — December 3, 2008 @ 3:48 am

Guts Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:19 am
I've noticed a lot of these threads have over 100 comments , it would probably deter people with slow connections or who just don't want to wait. How would you all feel about threaded comments?

Comment by Guts — December 3, 2008 @ 5:19 am

todd Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:49 am
Alan,

Are you saying undocumented aliens aren't a burden on our medical system (not to mention social services)?

I didn't read Bradford as scapegoating immigrants or illegals – but to deny they tax our health care and social services systems by way of ridiculing a position Bradford didn't put forward seems a bit disingenuous.

He isn't saying they are the cause of high costs, but was explaining the comparative differences between France & the US regarding immigration. I wonder if the French numbers are inclusive of their 'law-free zones' (see here and here and here)

If hospitals are required by law to serve any person walking in and states are required to provide social services no matter what the citizenship, can you explain to me bow this isn't an incentive to get into this country for care?

If you were a poor pregnant Mexican woman and knew if your child was born on US soil he would be entitled to citizenship and benefits not available to you in Mexico, not to mention state of the art medical care if you can get to a US emergency room in time to give birth, how much effort would it be worth to try and get over here?

If there is incentive, they come, if they come, they get benefits, benefits cost money.

There are incentives. The rest follows.

Also, I wouldn't dare suggest the U Maine paper you linked is biased, however, at the end I found the following: "We wish to acknowledge the helpful assistance of Ida Hellander, Physicians for a National Health Plan…"

Do you suppose Ida Hellander has an agenda? Might the "helpful assistance" supplied by him be at the very least, suspect of bias?

Comment by todd — December 3, 2008 @ 10:49 am

todd Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:13 am
This book review in Reason magazine, explains the problem with reports such as that linked by Alan Fox on US Health Care spending.

This article explains why Infant mortality and life expectancy rates are not necessarily good indicators of the efficacy of a given health care system.

This book, The Tyranny of Numbers, goes into excruciating detail of problems interpreting statistical tea leaves.

Comment by todd — December 3, 2008 @ 11:13 am

Alan Fox Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Are you saying undocumented aliens aren't a burden on our medical system (not to mention social services)?

Not at all. I have no idea how big your problem of illegal immigration from Mexico, Haiti, Cuba etc (I am guessing not Canada – ask me why if you like but it may be a digression) is. I am wondering if Bradford has more than anecdotal evidence on the cost of medical care to economic migrants. Does it amount to 50% of your health care budget?

Comment by Alan Fox — December 3, 2008 @ 1:25 pm

Joy Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
We have apparently lost the ability to send comments to the hole, so I have marked provan's stupidity as spam. Which it is.

I did this because you so deliberately misrepresented everything I said. I have no reason to suspect you are as stupid as you continually pretend to be. Either tell your programmer that the pretense isn't working any more, or (if you are human and not somebody's idiotic 'bot) grow a brain cell.

Comment by Joy — December 3, 2008 @ 2:10 pm

Joy Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
todd:

Are you saying undocumented aliens aren't a burden on our medical system (not to mention social services)?

??? I wonder if you've considered the fact that most "illegals" in this country work harder than most anyone else and are paid much less. The businesses that hire them do so because it's cheap labor and they don't have to pay taxes or provide benefits – like health insurance – that makes their products non-competitive in the world market against producer nations with universal care.

I know of businesses that send a pick-up guy to the border every spring to pick up their illegals for the season, then transport them back for the winter. So unless you guys can cite for me some actual statistics on how much of our population is "illegal" and exactly how many of those end up as "burdens" on our doctors and nurses (whose job it is to provide health care), I'm not buying it.

If hospitals are required by law to serve any person walking in and states are required to provide social services no matter what the citizenship, can you explain to me bow this isn't an incentive to get into this country for care?

If you or your child breaks a bone, don't go to the ER unless you need a pain pill. Because that's all you'll get. They don't set bones – they tell you to make an appointment with a bone doctor. They won't stitch your cuts either, though they might have a nurse clean 'em out and butterfly. Then you're told "it needs stitches," see your family doctor. And those specialists and GPs won't see you if you can't pay. Up front.

Hospitals refuse treatment and dump patients all the time, law or no law. Insurers covering state plans refuse to pay on a regular basis (that's what those RICO suits against insurers in New York, Michigan and California are all about). I have already mentioned that there's a cap on funding for Medicaid, SCHIP, food stamps and other services – a cap which is NOT required to consider how many people are left out. In my region less than half the citizens who qualify for aid receive it. Now you to tell me my family doesn't deserve health care because you're scared that Mexican field hands or nannies or slaughterhouse slaves might get health care too. How Christian of you.

We "working poor" pay a much larger percentage of our income in taxes than rich people do. We don't get much in return. The government thinks nothing of stealing from us for generations to bail out criminals on Wall Street, automakers who can't make marketable vehicles, insurers' collapsed ponzi schemes, etc., etc. To the tune of trillions (yes, more than one). Then tell me there's no money to provide health care to children or the working poor or people who actually need health care. That's total hooey – Every other civilized nation on the planet does it, so the fallacy is obvious.

So while it's true that regular doctor visits can kill you, basic health care is literally beyond the means of tens of millions of "natural born" American citizens. The number grows daily as companies lay off workers or go under, even as we're shoveling those trillions into the black hole of greed and criminal excess. Telling us that it's the fault of Mexicans that American businesses eagerly hire so they can get around paying decent wages and honest taxes is just plain insulting. I am not so stupid, so blind, or so callous.

Philadelphia Inquirer Series:
With no insurance, broken arm becomes long ordeal
Lack of insurance brought diabetic near death
Stats: The Uninsured Die Sooner
Facing a chronic illness with no insurance

Others:
TNR: Surgical Prep
Guaranteed Healthcare Blog (California Nurses Association/ National Nurses Organizing Committee)

Comment by Joy — December 3, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I wonder if you've considered the fact that most "illegals" in this country work harder than most anyone else and are paid much less. The businesses that hire them do so because it's cheap labor and they don't have to pay taxes or provide benefits – like health insurance – that makes their products non-competitive in the world market against producer nations with universal care.

I know of businesses that send a pick-up guy to the border every spring to pick up their illegals for the season, then transport them back for the winter. So unless you guys can cite for me some actual statistics on how much of our population is "illegal" and exactly how many of those end up as "burdens" on our doctors and nurses (whose job it is to provide health care), I'm not buying it.

Thanks for that information, Joy. If there is a market for cheap labour, someone is likely to supply it. The drug dealer or prostitute is not a problem if there is no demand.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 3, 2008 @ 2:13 pm

Rob R. Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Joy:

If you or your child breaks a bone, don't go to the ER unless you need a pain pill. Because that's all you'll get. They don't set bones – they tell you to make an appointment with a bone doctor. They won't stitch your cuts either, though they might have a nurse clean 'em out and butterfly. Then you're told "it needs stitches," see your family doctor. And those specialists and GPs won't see you if you can't pay. Up front.

[carefully tiptoes in]

This is untrue, at least in my experience here in Florida. I had a broken bone set and a cast put on (x-rays and all that goes along with it) when I was about ten years old [~20 years ago.] We had no insurance. They fixed me up and sent us a bill which Mom never payed. Same as we always did when it came to emergency care. Then a couple years ago I injured my finger and required 7 stitches. I went to the emergency room and some seven or so hours later was all stitched up. Same as before, no insurance… bill in the mail. Only this time it was me, not ma, whom didn't pay it. My understanding was/is that this is the standard practice. Doesn't do much for your credit rating but I/we were cared for (in emergency situations) none-the-less.

Further, it is my understanding, that these hospital losses/debts are covered (not sure if in full) by the government via tax payer monies. So we already do have universal emergency health care… for what that's worth. I still say that it is ridiculous that a modern society such as ours is without free healthcare for all its citizens. I've even heard that with what we pay to cover those 'emergency treatment' costs I mentioned above plus some modernization of the healthcare system and the reduced overall health issues due to more preventative care we could have universal healthcare without much added cost. Even if it is reasonably more, the benefits to our society as a whole mitigate those increases.

So…. *hey look…. over there!… what is that!?!*

[tiptoes out o' Dodge]

Comment by Rob R. — December 3, 2008 @ 2:30 pm

todd Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
??? I wonder if you've considered the fact that most "illegals" in this country work harder than most anyone else and are paid much less. The businesses that hire them do so because it's cheap labor and they don't have to pay taxes or provide benefits – like health insurance – that makes their products non-competitive in the world market against producer nations with universal care.

Joy,

With all due respect, how hard illegals work is irrelevant to their impact on the cost of health care in the US. As Rob's two personal anecdotes illustrate, the costs of our universal emergency care for the poor (illegals among them) are absorbed by insurance companies and private payers.

Moreover, it is a distraction from the central criticism of Uni-care®, which is about freedom and individual rights, not costs. Any nation which controls the health care of its citizens must manage costs somehow. We have seen how our own government manages costs, irrespective of party, and I have to wonder why on earth anyone would want to give that monstrosity a monopoly over our health care system? It truly baffles me.

As for the story of the broken arm, it really isn't quite that simple. The man in question was without insurance because he was a fool and still is, apparently. He has spent his life abusing his body, lost his health insurance because the results of his lifestyle were driving up his employer's costs. When referred to the private specialist, he claimed impoverishment, which if true, meant he was qualified for medicaid and probably SS disability and whatever the state of Pennsylvania has to offer, which incidentally took '6 long weeks' to get him approved for medical care! And you want to turn the whole system over to bureaucracies such as that? Really and truly?

(so he did get care in the end, which is counter to this example as you intended it, I think)

I find it amazing that not one person in all his 'calls around' could point him in the right direction. In most states, if not all, county and municipal hospitals either have the forms or know the drill to direct the uninsured to the right agencies. Maybe I'm heartless, but I had trouble sympathizing with this guy, he seemed to take little responsibility for his own actions (or inactions).

As a piece of your own argument, Joy, why should I feel a responsibility over someone who apparently accepts none for themselves – and more importantly, what right do you have, through your vote/support to coerce me or anyone, really, into absorbing the harvest he sowed for himself? Doesn't it cease to be charity when it is mandated by government force?

Now you to tell me my family doesn't deserve health care because you're scared that Mexican field hands or nannies or slaughterhouse slaves might get health care too. How Christian of you.

Ah, so the title of this thread is meant to be sarcastic?

Did I tell you your family doesn't deserve health care? Does my opposition to Uni-care® amount to that? Did Christ lead the charge on Rome for health care? Which gospel was that in? Book of Hesitations?

Seriously though, I agree the 'working poor' pay a too large percentage of their wages in taxes, but the lower 5th has an aggregate negative tax rate. They are effectually subsidized by other tax payers. Social Insurance taxes and sales taxes are the biggest drains on working poor incomes, followed somewhere by the hidden tax of inflationary monetary policy. Again, looking at how badly the federal government has mismanaged social security & medicare, why give these same jokers the reins of our health care?

Wouldn't it be better if social insurance was mandated the same as auto insurance and the amounts FICA currently taxes out of income were available as investment dollars in the private sector? Wouldn't the working poor benefit over time if they legally owned the money currently being taxed and spent and had it available for medical emergencies or as inheritances?

Comment by todd — December 3, 2008 @ 3:42 pm

todd Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Not at all. I have no idea how big your problem of illegal immigration from Mexico, Haiti, Cuba etc (I am guessing not Canada – ask me why if you like but it may be a digression) is. I am wondering if Bradford has more than anecdotal evidence on the cost of medical care to economic migrants. Does it amount to 50% of your health care budget?

Alan,

I've read some 15% of US uninsured are illegals. Please read this, from the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Illegal Aliens and American Medicine.

Excerpt:

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires every ED to treat anyone who enters with an "emergency," including cough, headache, hangnail, cardiac arrest, herniated lumbar disc, drug addiction, alcohol overdose, gunshot wound, automobile trauma, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive infection, mental problem, or personality disorder.

The definition of emergency is flexible and vague enough to include almost any condition. Any patient coming to a hospital ED requesting "emergency" care must be screened and treated until ready for discharge, or stabilized for transfer "whether or not insured, "documented," or able to pay. A woman in labor must remain to deliver her child.

The hospital must have specialists on call at all times for all departments that provide medical services and specialties within the hospital's capabilities. EMTALA is an unfunded federal mandate. Government imposes viciously stiff fines and penalties on any physician and any hospital refusing to treat any patient that a zealous prosecutor deems an emergency patient, even though the hospital or physician screened and declared the patient's illness or injury non-emergency. But government pays neither hospital nor physician for treatments. In addition to the fiscal attack on medical facilities and personnel, EMTALA is a handy truncheon with which to pummel politically unpopular physicians by falsely accusing
them of violating EMTALA.

High-technology EDs have degenerated into free medical offices. Between 1993 and 2003, 60 California hospitals closed because half their services became unpaid. Another 24 California hospitals verge on closure. Even ambulances from Mexico come to American EDs with indigents because the drivers know that EMTALA requires accepting patients who come within 250 yards of a hospital. That geographic limit has figured in many lawsuits.

Take a look at the Federation for American Immigration Reform's page, Illegal Immigration and Public Health.

Costs of Medical Care

Immigrants are often uninsured and underinsured. Forty-three percent of noncitizens under 65 have no health insurance. That means there are 9.4 million uninsured immigrants, a majority of whom are in the country illegally, constituting 15 percent of the total uninsured in the nation in the mid-1990s. The cost of the medical care of these uninsured immigrants is passed onto the taxpayer, and strains the financial stability of the health care community.

Another problem is immigrants’ use of hospital and emergency services rather than preventative medical care. For example, utilization rate of hospitals and clinics by illegal aliens (29 percent) is more than twice the rate of the overall U.S. population (11 percent).

As a result, the costs of medical care for immigrants are staggering. The estimated cost of unreimbursed medical care in 2004 in California was about $1.4 billion per year. In Texas, the estimated cost was about $.85 billion, and in Arizona the comparable estimate was $.4 billion per year.

One of the frequent costs to U.S. taxpayers is delivery of babies to illegal alien mothers. A California study put the number of these anchor baby deliveries in the state in 1994 at 74,987, at a cost of $215 million. At that time, those births constituted 36 percent of all Medi-Cal births, and they have grown now to substantially more than half or the annual Medi-Cal budget. In 2003, 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in San Joaquin General Hospital’s maternity ward were anchor babies. Medical in 2003 had 760,000 illegal alien beneficiaries, up from 2002, when there were 470,000.

Comment by todd — December 3, 2008 @ 4:01 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Todd

There is quite a lot on the web about the issue of illegal immigration, but it is hard to sort out the lobby groups from genuine information sources. Anyway this arose because Bradford claimed health systems in other countries did not carry such a huge burden caused by illegal immigrants. I pointed out that the US spends double (per capita) for an apparently much poorer service than the best performer, and wonder whether illegal immigrants account for half your health care costs. Do you think so?

Comment by Alan Fox — December 3, 2008 @ 4:45 pm

don provan Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I did this because you so deliberately misrepresented everything I said.

I'm sorry you think so. Please, tell me: wasn't your story about a woman dying and then saving you by keeping her promise to plead your case to Jesus? I'm sorry you didn't like me stating it so boldly, but that's what you said. Maybe you forgot: "I told her that if I died first, I'd plead her case to Jesus so she might live. She promised me the same thing. In the course of months she did die… I began getting well immediately. And I mean within a week, I was cancer-free."

I don't even think you can claim this is some ancillary information that I shouldn't be emphasizing: as far as I can see, this is the central idea in your story. I'm utterly confused about why you're upset about me echoing it back to you, but I'm willing to listen to you explain what I misunderstood.

(But thank you for admitting what you did: Bradford seems to quietly send problem posts to the memory hole (or further) without justifying it.)

Comment by don provan — December 3, 2008 @ 4:58 pm

Bradford Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Alan Fox:

There is quite a lot on the web about the issue of illegal immigration, but it is hard to sort out the lobby groups from genuine information sources. Anyway this arose because Bradford claimed health systems in other countries did not carry such a huge burden caused by illegal immigrants.

That's accurate to a limited extent. I pointed out the illegal immigrant burden as one of may reasons, the others of which I have yet to specify.

I pointed out that the US spends double (per capita) for an apparently much poorer service than the best performer, and wonder whether illegal immigrants account for half your health care costs. Do you think so?

It was never claimed that illegal immigrants soak up the entire differential. More on some other reasons later when I have more time to post.

Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2008 @ 5:22 pm

Bradford Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
(But thank you for admitting what you did: Bradford seems to quietly send problem posts to the memory hole (or further) without justifying it.)

I rarely hole a comment that does not stray beyond the bounds of civility. A few days ago I holed one because the commenter described a source I referenced as an idiot. That'll do it.

Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2008 @ 5:25 pm

todd Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Alan:

There is quite a lot on the web about the issue of illegal immigration, but it is hard to sort out the lobby groups from genuine information sources.

Yet you posted a report which gave credit for 'helpful assistance' from a man identified with an agenda, by his association with a universal health care lobbying group!

All the links I excerpted have footnotes on the statistics and claims. So one can see the source of information for the claim that 50% of Cal-care baby deliveries are illegals.

So rather than dismiss a claim you don't like as a lobby group, how about evaluate the source of the claim?

The other links I provided about statistics explain why the argument in the paper you linked is meaningless – comparisons of per capita spending to longevity create a correlation where there isn't one.

Comment by todd — December 3, 2008 @ 7:07 pm

Joy Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Rob R.:

This is untrue, at least in my experience here in Florida. I had a broken bone set and a cast put on (x-rays and all that goes along with it) when I was about ten years old [~20 years ago.]

That's nice. It wasn't true in Jacksonville 20 years ago for my husband's badly broken nose – it was laying on the side of his face (body surfing accident)! We called ahead because a friend from Miami told us they wouldn't set it, and sure enough, they wouldn't. Not even University. So he took a big swig of tequila and set it himself. Wasn't true there for my son's broken ankle, either. Told us to wrap it in an Ace bandage. He broke his wrist falling out of a tree in Virginia when he was four, the doctor tried to cram his arm into an adult-sized ankle splint, the nurse had to take over (I think he was drunk). As we were paying out and she discovered his bone was actually broken, she told us to "take him to a REAL doctor." That was the only hospital in 6 counties.

Here in western NC, we have 1 hospital for all of the mountain counties (plus the county health departments, where you go to get shots but not for medical care if you value your life). Two of my friends are ER nurses. When a friend's daughter got smashed by an out of control skier on the slopes last year her humorous was broken through near the shoulder. They X-rayed and gave her a sling, told her parents to make an appointment with a bone doctor, but the bone doctor wouldn't see her for more than a month. It healed naturally, by the time he got to it he wanted to do surgery and break it again. They walked out. My daughter slipped on the ridgeside in the rain, impaled her arm on a sapling stump – we had to lift her off. It needed at least six stitches, she got a single butterfly bandage at the ER, still owes $600. When hubby slashed his leg wide open trying to load a lawn mower in the truck this past June, we didn't even bother. I cleaned it out, dowsed it with betadine and butterflied it myself. It took eight, left a fine scar.

Further, it is my understanding, that these hospital losses/debts are covered (not sure if in full) by the government via tax payer monies.

Actually, the states use taxpayer money to purchase insurance from the usual insurance giants, who have a dozen ways of refusing to pay as standard operating procedure. This is what led to those RICO suits, beginning with NYC, whose public hospitals are on the verge of shutting down because they can't get paid. It's getting worse, not better. Also, many states (including Florida) purchase insurance from for-profits for Medicare and Medicaid as well as SCHIP. You don't want to hear my mother's horror story, the reason she starved herself to death. By the way, they never did set her arms, though she did get a nice hip replacement – the gub'ment pays well for that. Oh… and you do know that you can't get insurance if you're sick, don't you? It's a scam.

My son is dead (16 years ago) because our insurance company decided to pay zip after they'd pre-approved everything and ran up a $120,000 bill. He was abandoned by his doctors, who then lied to us about his condition so they wouldn't have to obey Florida's medical regulations that don't allow them to abandon. Life insurance is no better – when my brother died his insurer (through Chase Manhattan) simply refused. Took three lawyers in two states to make them pay, the lawyers took half so his widow and three small children got very little. When Mom died after working several decades for Blue Cross Blue Shield, I discovered as her executor that her life insurance policy had been sold and re-sold so many times they'd marked it down by half. Knowing (as I do) that the lawyers take half, what could we do other than complain to the insurance commissioner? Nothing was done, of course.

I hope you continue to receive the care you need when you need it, and not have to fight your insurer to the death for it. We don't need no steenking insurance. What we need is health care.

Comment by Joy — December 3, 2008 @ 7:43 pm

Rob R. Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:44 pm

Guts:
I've noticed a lot of these threads have over 100 comments , it would probably deter people with slow connections or who just don't want to wait. How would you all feel about threaded comments?

I know this is intended for folks who contribute often and/or have slow access (I have neither affliction) but I have always liked the threaded format better. Plus if it helps some members (poor, poor Joy ) then why not?

While I'm wasting your time and bandwidth: why do most blogs use HTML instead of BB code? Maybe I am just used to it but, I prefer BB code and I never understood why everyone doesn't use the same thing (either one.) I am sure there is some practical reason for this but, if I ruled the web…..

Comment by Rob R. — December 3, 2008 @ 7:44 pm

Rob R. Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:51 pm
I am with ya Joy… believe me. just relating my experiences where, as I said, I was never denied care. For my finger they took me to a room, asked some questions (how much can you pay, when can you pay it) and said they would send me a bill. I thought there was a law* which didn't allow hospitals to deny emergency treatment? Seriously though, while I don't recall all the details wrt my broken wrist bones 20 years ago besides the bill ma always complained about, I know my recent adventure (besides the horribly long wait in excruciating pain) went without a hitch.

*I will look around and see if I can find it.

Comment by Rob R. — December 3, 2008 @ 7:51 pm

Rob R. Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Found it.

]Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (42 U.S.C. § 1395dd, EMTALA) is a United States Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. It requires hospitals and ambulance services to provide care to anyone needing emergency treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. There are no reimbursement provisions. As a result of the act, patients needing emergency treatment can be discharged only under their own informed consent or when their condition requires transfer to a hospital better equipped to administer the treatment.

EMTALA applies to "participating hospitals", i.e., those that accept payment from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) under the Medicare program. However, in practical terms, EMTALA applies to virtually all hospitals in the U.S., with the exception of the Shriners Hospitals for Children, Indian Health Service hospitals, and Veterans Affairs hospitals. The combined payments of Medicare and Medicaid, $602 billion in 2004,[1] or roughly 44% of all medical expenditures in the U.S., make not participating in EMTALA impractical for nearly all hospitals. EMTALA's provisions apply to all patients, and not just to Medicare patients.[2][3]

The cost of emergency care required by EMTALA is not directly covered by the federal government. Because of this, the law has been criticized by some as an unfunded mandate.[4] Similarly, it has attracted controversy for its impacts on hospitals, and in particular, for its possible contributions to an emergency medical system that is "overburdened, underfunded and highly fragmented".[5] More than half of all emergency room care in the U.S. now goes uncompensated. Hospitals write off such care as charity or bad debt for tax purposes. Increasing financial pressures on hospitals in the period since EMTALA's passage have caused consolidations and closures, so the number of emergency rooms is decreasing despite increasing demand for emergency care.[6] There is also debate about the extent to which EMTALA has led to cost-shifting and higher rates for insured or paying hospital patients, thereby contributing to the high overall rate of medical inflation in the U.S.

Since '86 it says.

Comment by Rob R. — December 3, 2008 @ 7:58 pm

don provan Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I know this is intended for folks who contribute often and/or have slow access…

Really? I thought it was just because it's easier to follow branching conversations, and it only happened to be convenient in specific cases.

While I'm wasting your time and bandwidth: why do most blogs use HTML instead of BB code? Maybe I am just used to it but, I prefer BB code and I never understood why everyone doesn't use the same thing (either one.) I am sure there is some practical reason for this but, if I ruled the web…..

Well, I can't tell you why, but I've been writing HTML by hand since before most people had heard of the Internet, so I dislike having to force some other encoding method to generate the HTML I know I want. So you won't get my vote for ruler of the Web: I'm happier with this approach, although I'd like it to allow additional HTML formats such as
<nl>
<li> lists
</nl>
but I can understand why they want to limit the possibilities. (Sorry: HTML humor. And it took me 5 tries to figure out how to make this limited HTML do it….)

Comment by don provan — December 3, 2008 @ 8:01 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:23 pm
@ Bradford and Todd

I came across this study which makes some interesting points.

From the study:

Low rates of use of health care services by Mexican immigrants and similar trends among other Latinos do not support public concern about immigrants’ overuse of the health care system. Undocumented individuals demonstrate less use of health care than US-born citizens, and they have more negative experiences with the health care that they have received. The findings demonstrate that immigrant authorization status is an important determinant of health care access and patterns of use of services among Latinos.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 3, 2008 @ 8:23 pm

Bradford Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 12:15 am
From the link supplied by Alan Fox:

First, we used 2 tests to describe the sample population by demographics, health insurance, and self-reported health status in terms of race/ethnicity and citizen/documentation status. Second, we used 2 tests and analysis of variance to compare health care access (usual source of care and problems in getting necessary health care in the past 12 months) and use of health care services (number of physician visits in the past 12 months, having had at least 1 physician visit in the past 12 months, and having used the ED in the past year) for each of the racial/ethnic and citizen/documentation categories.

The tests are unreliable indicators. Health care professionals are in a very poor position to make an assessment that will result in an ability to distinguish one patient from another with respect to immigration status. The above criteria are inadaquate. I have mentioned before that I have multiple family members involved in health care professions. One once called me on the phone seeking my assistance in interpreting for a patient who knew virtually no English. After finding out all the medical details needed to assist the doctor I continued the conversation and found out the patient recently arrived in the United States via the Mexican border and without visa. The Americans caring for the patient were clueless. She was one of many that are not detected. And why not? It is not the job of nurses and doctors to ascertain immigration status.

But foreign nationals are but one piece of the puzzle which explains a declining health care system. To be fair and accurate the technology available to health care professionals in the United States is very good. Diagnostic tools have never been better. But they are expensive. Radiological imagary technology is capable of some amazing things. The technology is rapidly advancing to the point where conventional x-ray procedures are becoming outmoded for the diagnosis of most problems. Computerized tomography is destined to become the standard diagnotic imagary technique even in small medical clinics and dental offices in the near future. Other non-imagary diagnostic tools are likewise becoming increasingly sophisticated.

Sounds good right? If money is no obstacle it is good indeed. The problem is physicians have lost the flexibility they once had when family doctors were common and tight bonds between doctors and patients were formed. Contemporary medical practice is defined by less personal care and more significantly a great concern among physicians for managing liability costs. Insurance is very expensive and the need to minimize suits to control costs a big part of medicine these days. The Ameican tort system is unique and the emphasis on deep pockets promotes an impression that remedies are sometimes less about culpability than they are about dollars and cents.

Doctors are prone to overprescribe diagnostic tests to cover their backsides. When they have patients facing bills they cannot afford real dilemnas arise. Do you forego a test, that is probably not needed anyway, in the interest of keeping costs down or do you proceed with it to secure your flanks against the possibility that an attorney might second guess you in the unlikely chance that something very unusual is occurring?

Healthcare problems cannot be reduced to simple formulations. There are multiple factors driving up costs. Solutions are not as simple as pointing fingers at one party. The issue is too complex for that.

Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2008 @ 12:15 am

Alan Fox Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 3:35 am
Healthcare problems cannot be reduced to simple formulations. There are multiple factors driving up costs. Solutions are not as simple as pointing fingers at one party. The issue is too complex for that.

Facts, Bradford. These help in making objective judgements. Whilst I don't disagree with the points in your comment, especially the cost of new technology, and the counter-productive results of liability culture, lifestyle changes could bring great benefits at little cost. Obesity is a killer, for example.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 4, 2008 @ 3:35 am

Bradford Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Alan Fox:

…lifestyle changes could bring great benefits at little cost. Obesity is a killer, for example.

Very good point. It seems to me that problem needs attacking from a cultural perspective. Making it seem uncool can deter some would be smokers and drunkards. It should be uncool to be fat.

Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2008 @ 10:42 am

Joy Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
Bradford:

Health care professionals are in a very poor position to make an assessment that will result in an ability to distinguish one patient from another with respect to immigration status.

Actually, Wiki has a pretty good run-down of health care stats and summaries in the US using reasonably reliable sources. EMTALA is one of those "unfunded mandates" that put providers at a large disadvantage, with half of emergency care not reimbursed at all, by anyone. According to the census bureau, 9.7 million of the uninsured are "non-citizens." They do not ask (or report) how many of those are illegals, but there are lots of foreigners here at college and imported workers with green cards. As well as spouses of natural born citizens who have not changed their own citizenship status.

This is compared to [2007] 36 million of the uninsured being legal US citizens. So even if 6 or 7 million of the uninsured non-citizens who actually do show up at ERs were illegals from Mexico (a high estimate because Hispanics are loathe to use the system), that's not enough to claim that Mexicans are responsible for our health care crisis.

An estimated 56% of the uninsured do qualify for public assistance, yet the article mentions what I've pointed out – funding shortfalls mean eligibility won't get you on the rolls. No matter what color you are.

Doctors are prone to overprescribe diagnostic tests to cover their backsides. When they have patients facing bills they cannot afford real dilemnas arise. Do you forego a test, that is probably not needed anyway, in the interest of keeping costs down or do you proceed with it to secure your flanks against the possibility that an attorney might second guess you in the unlikely chance that something very unusual is occurring?

While you mention issues that are known to be detrimental to our health care system, overprescription of tests is often mandated by insurers. Most states already have strict caps on damages in malpractice suits – costs, actual damages (to cover future care), zero punitives. Malpractice insurance for providers is also a hotbed of greed, graft and outright thievery. The insurer for the physicians who abandoned my son – the largest in the nation – went into government receivership after principals left the country with suitcases full of the assets, then the appointed receiver (an ex-LA governor) and his son looted the rest (Physicians Mutual Risk, early 1990s).

Hispanics actually avail themselves of health care at far smaller rates than any other demographic, and, along with blacks, receive far less (and often inadequate) care. Institutional racism and provider discrimination is a large issue, well documented. Along with the fact that by routinely denying insurance to the sick, insurers shift the cost to public and charity coffers quite purposely to protect their bottom line. We spend just over $7,000 per man, woman and child every year for health care, twice or more what countries with universal care pay. But they include everyone in their pool, and a third of every dollar coming in is not wasted or chunked down the profit hole, as it is here. For all that, we rank very low among all industrialized nations in life expectancy, infant mortality and general health (high chronic disease rates).

Doing more to keep ourselves healthy would go much farther than trying to cure disease after it develops. But when figuring per capita costs, consider that a good many of us don't use the system unless we have to. I haven't been to a doctor in about 15 years (can't recall precisely), went to a GP and paid out of pocket. Before that I went once back in the early '80s for a swelling in a gland, concerned about radiation exposure some years prior. I made use of a federal following program for those who had worked the TMI recovery (so it was paid for). Before that I had my tubes tied just before hubby was discharged from the Navy. That was 1974. Having spent much of my childhood being pricked and prodded and radiated (Mom LOVED that universal government care!), I admit I have a bad attitude. Quit eating meat 35 years ago, get plenty of exercise and fresh air, don't run to the doctor for every ache or sneeze.

There are many like me, at least a few million. We cost the system zip. If the pool did include everyone, our per capita costs would go down, care and outcomes just might improve, and preventive efforts might sink into our generally lazy, gluttonous population. Lord knows what we've got now doesn't work. And for all those – like my Mother-in-Law – who are adamantly opposed to my family getting health care because they don't want to have to share a room, let 'em buy supplemental insurance so they can have a room to themselves in a swanky private hospital. I don't mind.

Comment by Joy — December 4, 2008 @ 12:35 pm

Bradford Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Is it true that the USA is one of the few or perhaps the only country where a significant percentage of the population have health care benefits through employers? I heard that on the radio today as I was driving. Given the fact that many commenters at TT are from other countries maybe they could weigh in on how it is done in their own nation.

Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2008 @ 2:55 pm

todd Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Is it true that HMOs were created by an act of Congress, too help guide us all into good health decisions?

It seems to me there is larger problem culturally of taking responsibility for one's actions – no one wants the government to make them eat right, determine how much they must exercise, or prohibit great profits after great risk. But everyone wants the gubmit cheese when their lard asses cause health deterioration or their risk sub-prime portfolios collapse.

From both ends of the spectrum, we have people demanding protection from the fruits of their own liberty!

Comment by todd — December 4, 2008 @ 4:12 pm

todd Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Andrew Sullivan, writes the following today:

One reason I'm a conservative is the British National Health Service. Until you have lived under socialism, it sounds like a great idea. It isn't misery – although watching my parents go through the system lately has been nerve-wracking – but there is a basic assumption. The government collective decides everything. You, the individual patient, and you, the individual doctor, are the least of their concerns. I prefer freedom and the market to rationalism and the collective. That's why I live here.

Comment by todd — December 4, 2008 @ 4:30 pm

Joy Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Bradford:

Is it true that the USA is one of the few or perhaps the only country where a significant percentage of the population have health care benefits through employers?

According to both the linked Wikipedia article and the AFL-CIO, it is true. Under the entry for Universal Care, the US is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal care system. Still, the government does directly cover almost 28% of citizens via Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP, government employees and VA.

Just over 50% of Americans get coverage through their employers, 9% get private coverage. Added to the 28% in government care, that leaves 13% of us with nothing. Wages for the vast majority of Americans have been absolutely stagnant for 7 years, and haven't kept up with inflation in nearly 30 years. Many small employers don't offer insurance at all, and many of those who do have been shifting more and more of the costs – that rise precipitously every year, onto the employees. At one job a few years ago my husband's insurance cost price hike was three times his COL raise that year, and they stopped offering dependent coverage altogether. That's standard around here. There are only a few businesses in this whole region that aren't government that are big enough to be REQUIRED to offer insurance, but a good many others do the best they can, offering high-deductible "junk insurance" which is, let's face it, better than nothing if you get seriously sick or injured. Provided you can afford the lawyer to force the insurer to honor the contract. That can take years.

There are two main problems with the reliance on employer-provided insurance that simply cannot be fixed in a for-profit based system like ours. First, the cost of health care for employees – even if the employees pay for most of it – puts our businesses at a significant disadvantage when competing in global markets with nations who don't require employer-provided care, or have universal tax-supported care. The taxes businesses in those countries pay into the universal system are less than the contributions employers here pay, even though those contributions are themselves non-taxable.

Second, as any hard-working person who has a child with asthma or a spouse who is partially disabled can tell you, the lack of available, affordable and portable health insurance leads to "wage-slavery." People cannot change jobs or go into business for themselves with better ideas, because they simply have to have the insurance. If they quit a job, everyone (and any/all members of their family) who have ever actually USED their health care will be denied coverage forever forward due to "pre-existing conditions." For-profit insurers are given a broad waiver to deny coverage to anybody they suspect might need health care, except for those policies they craft and provide (still at profit) for government.

The way it worked in Florida when the state outsourced their Medicare/Medicaid is that people had a choice of policies – standard under the government mandate, straight hospitalization, home care, rehab, etc. but no drugs, or a drug-centered one that covered all prescriptions but paid less for hospitalization that straight Medicare and nothing for any further medical services. Thousands of people got screwed by that little experiment, now SOP all over the country.

Honestly, if we simply got rid of the whole for-profit thing we'd do a lot better. It is estimated that at least 27,000 Americans DIE every year for lack of basic health care. That figure is quite likely much higher, no one's in charge of counting. Of course, around 60,000 die every year due to medical errors when they do have care, which is something the Obama admin will try to rectify by re-vamping the records system (so, for instance, you don't end up with conflicting prescriptions).

We're at a crossroads of history right now. Our economy is on its deathbed, the whole thing needs to start over from scratch. This can be a terrible tragedy of Biblical proportions (we haven't even begun to see the true impacts), or it can be a mass wake-up call that puts us on much stronger footing for the future. Health care is just one aspect, there are others – energy, innovation, agriculture, etc., etc., etc. It's been longer than most people around the 'nets have been alive that any POTUS ever asked us honestly to sacrifice for the greater good. I think Obama is going to have to do so, and I'm hoping We the People will heed him. I don't expect miracles in the next 4-8 years, but if we can simply lay firm foundations we'll be better off than we otherwise would be. We are all Americans, are we not? My opinion, that's all.

Comment by Joy — December 4, 2008 @ 5:07 pm

Bradford Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Todd:

It seems to me there is larger problem culturally of taking responsibility for one's actions – no one wants the government to make them eat right, determine how much they must exercise, or prohibit great profits after great risk. But everyone wants the gubmit cheese when their lard asses cause health deterioration or their risk sub-prime portfolios collapse.

From both ends of the spectrum, we have people demanding protection from the fruits of their own liberty!

From my place on the spectrum it just looks like a shift in values is needed. However, I'm not for the government mandating this. Rather I'd like to see fat people feel like they are doing something wrong when they put on those extra pounds. That seems to result from consensus and some looks of oprobrium directed at offenders.

Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2008 @ 5:07 pm

Joy Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
BTW, Bradford… we don't argue with Mom-in-Law (the only Mom we've got left) about her Fox-bot talking points. She herself doesn't think them through, she's just lonely since Dad died, and so went from being an involved liberal to being as hard right as possible just because she thinks he'd approve. She's 86, entitled to whatever makes her feel good (even if that involves enough misdirected hatred to feel bad).

He ran a State Department of Veteran's Affairs, had that good gub'ment insurance. Which she has too. Everything – all doctor's visits, all hospitalization, all home or outpatient services, all drugs – are covered, the 'company' is never going to steal her pension or retirement coverage to pay some CEO's golden parachute.

It's always been rather ironic to me that someone who enjoys the very best of government-provided health care can with a straight face tell me and mine we don't deserve even the most basic, because she wants a private room when she's sick. That came from her mother's experience in Canada, Grandmother was in a room with two others. Grandmother, however, thought it was fine, would have been miserable all by herself with no one to gab with. Go figure…

From my place on the spectrum it just looks like a shift in values is needed.

Some states are trying hard to address the sort of situation we have here in the rural parts of the country, where high-tech regional medical centers, university hospitals, etc. are very few and far between. Mostly we get the imported doctors from India, Pakistan, Iran, Cuba or South America, who will serve rural communities and not expect to get rich. Like the GPs of old, and most of them really do a good job.

We had an entertainment gig in October at a park on the Virginia-Kentucky border, a conference banquet for a joint state/UVA program with peripheral attachments to Patch Adams (probably why they hired clowns). It's a program that sends graduate medical students into the rural hinterlands to do their residencies treating we barefoot and unwashed masses. They've apparently had a good bit of luck with this program, and some of those who participate end up being country doctors. I know the folks out here sure appreciate it, and the states make up some of the income shortfalls (and/or provide clinic space, supplies, equipment, etc. through their HRS).

Yeah, some of 'em really do get paid in chickens or eggs or a roofing job or auto mechanics. So what? Life is about more than gold. Maybe it's time for some recent generations of misguided youth to figure that out. §;o)

Comment by Joy — December 4, 2008 @ 5:47 pm

Joy Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
todd:

It seems to me there is larger problem culturally of taking responsibility for one's actions – no one wants the government to make them eat right, determine how much they must exercise, or prohibit great profits after great risk. But everyone wants the gubmit cheese when their lard asses cause health deterioration or their risk sub-prime portfolios collapse.

That's a little harsh, isn't it? I wonder if you have any understanding of WHY the new "face of poverty" is obese, rather than rail-thin and starving like it was in the '30s. People have been enjoying the heck out of fat back in the beans and buttermilk to crumble their cornbread in forever. But our current agricultural system, food processing conglomerates and public assistance programs all contribute to what is, ipso facto, the World's Worst Diet.

Hint: High fructose corn syrup. Read some labels next time you go grocery shopping, see if you can find things without it. It was lard or tallow back when I became semi-vegetarian, had to learn how to make my own because it was in everything, along with all the necessary preservatives no one can pronounce because it's all rancid. Fact of the matter is, the cheapest foods are the worst for you. Pack on the pounds, sacrifice your health. Even WIC and food stamp programs promote unhealthy choices, don't allow for fresh fruit and vegetables, etc. That's a result of expensive lobbyists for the food processors, working on corrupt politicians on the committees.

We all got to see that new obese face of poverty during the Katrina fiasco. There is a reason poor people are fat, and it's not that they spend three or four times what we spend on food. In fact, they spend less because they've got less. See if you can add that 2 + 2 and come up with 4.

Maybe education would help, but the junk food lobby owns public schools too (where physical education is no longer a daily requirement). Not to mention billions' of dollars worth of advertising of junk foods to children on television. Advertising aimed at kids works, or they wouldn't do it. How many times have you seen a 4-year old throw a hissy fit in the junk aisle at the grocery? I used to leave mine kicking and screaming on the floor and pretend they weren't mine…

Our neighborhoods are no longer safe, parents don't tell their kids to "go out and play" like they did when I was a kid. Too dangerous. So a majority of kids these days are obese too. That was literally unheard of when I was young.

Sure, part of it is bad choices. Part of it's ignorance. Part of it is corporate manipulation, and part of it is social breakdown. But blaming the victims with terms like "lard-butt" is about as useful as blaming Mexican immigrants for our health care crisis. More than 70% of personal bankruptcies these days are for medical bills even the insured can't pay. Blaming them for that doesn't fix the problem, does it?

Comment by Joy — December 4, 2008 @ 6:14 pm

Bradford Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Joy:

Just over 50% of Americans get coverage through their employers, 9% get private coverage. Added to the 28% in government care, that leaves 13% of us with nothing.

These stats tell me something. Any government sponsored health programs, which result in employers abandoning their own programs, will be self-defeating. Yet to require that companies maintain such policies without a quid pro quo would also be unwise. As it is U.S. companies have a burden their foreign competitors are not saddled with. Universal coverage would need to also encourage companies to stay in the health insurance business. Tax incentives? Something else? I'm not sure. But we do not want the 59% flocking to government programs.

Comment by Bradford — December 4, 2008 @ 6:34 pm

Joy Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Oh, and Todd, about those "sub-prime portfolios…"

Did you know that when the government had to take over Fannie and Freddie, the GAO launched investigations that are barely started at this point? And every time FDIC has to take over a bank, they go into investigative mode too. Results so far show there is way, way more criminality going on with all this than you probably want to believe – in fact, a good percentage of those sub-prime mortgages bundled into CDS scams never existed in the first place. Whole cloth. No such borrower, no such house. The defaults were worth a whole lot more than anybody's mortgage was ever worth, so they invented some.

Before it's over our prison population will probably boom. Or, more likely, most of 'em will get away to the Caymans and laugh all the way to Switzerland. About 1% of mortgages in the best of times default. We're now up to 4%. That should not have crashed the entire world's economy. There is some serious moral bankruptcy here, we've just barely scratched the surface. Looks to me (following another thread) that morality and intelligence aren't very well connected at all. At least, not in a system that regards greed as good and rewards thieves if they steal a billion or more.

Comment by Joy — December 4, 2008 @ 6:35 pm

Joy Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Bradford:

Universal coverage would need to also encourage companies to stay in the health insurance business. Tax incentives? Something else? I'm not sure. But we do not want the 59% flocking to government programs.

Well, Lord knows I'm no expert, given how much I do NOT use the system unless forced to. I figure when I die they'll do something with me, since if they just leave me to rot I'm a public health hazard. I've told my hubby to just bury me in the pet graveyard at the bottom of the garden. Or, if they cremate me, toss me in the rose bed where my Mom, sister and son are (we've very acidic red-clay soil, ashes are good, as is bone meal!).

I don't know why we can't have universal care. Everybody else does, and it costs half or less what we pay per capita – and they live longer, are generally healthier, their babies are healthier, etc. We're "the richest country the world has ever known." WHY can't we afford it? It would free our businesses to compete, we'd be happier and healthier, and you can always invest in for-profit life, car and casualty insurance instead of the futures market on human suffering.

Plus, we could allow for Cadillac policies for people like Mom who just can't stand the thought of sharing a room with someone else. They can cover obesity surgery, plastic surgery, private rooms, private hospitals, high-dollar doctors, whatever. Spend that money! Invest in the profit margins! But I see no good reason at all to deny basic health care to anyone just because of greed. Or hamstring our business as well as our workers who have to compete in a global market. Really.

Comment by Joy — December 4, 2008 @ 6:56 pm

steve Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Wow. Check out the Olofsson thread at UD. Dembski now sorta kinda admits that his Explanatory Filter is wrong.

I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection. -WD

'course if you listened to scientists you would have known the EF was junk back in the 1990's. Here's looking forward to 2016, when Dembski sorta kinda admits that CSI is bogus.

Comment by steve — December 4, 2008 @ 7:40 pm

Joy Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Oh come off it, steve. You've been trumpeting the death of UD, Dave Scott, Denise O'Leary, whoever and whatever for so long it's driven you nuts. They're still there, we're still here, we'll all probably still be talking about what interests us long after your little hate-fest blows itself out from sheer overabundance of sockpuppets and utter lack of life force.

Grow up. Nobody here cares about your lack of predictive ability. Go pick on that housewife from Kansas if you're bored. She likes it. I do not.

Comment by Joy — December 4, 2008 @ 8:24 pm

don provan Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
So how do we identify or measure CSI if we don't even have the EF to work with? Doesn't that make CSI a theoretical concept with no practical application now? Has Dembski invented better ways of revealing CSI that I just haven't heard of yet?

Comment by don provan — December 4, 2008 @ 8:52 pm

Raevmo Says:
December 4th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
don provan:

Has Dembski invented better ways of revealing CSI that I just haven't heard of yet?

You have to buy his new books to find out more about the Christian Snakeoil Initiative.

Comment by Raevmo — December 4, 2008 @ 10:30 pm

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 12:19 am
Joy, Bradford,

This policy analysis paper from Cato explodes some of the myths concerning Universal Health Coverage. It is well sourced.

For instance, Joy mentions life expectancy and birth rates. Both rates are influenced by factors other than health care, so using them as correlations is not logical.

What is better is to look at those diseases which a medical system can treat, such as cancer:

Take cancer, for example. As Figure 7 illustrates, in New Zealand and the United Kingdom nearly half of all women diagnosed with breast cancer die of the disease. In Germany and France, almost one in three dies of the disease. By contrast, in the United States only one in four women diagnosed with breast cancer dies of the disease. This is among the lowest rates of any industrial country

Slightly fewer than one in five men in the United States diagnosed with prostate cancer dies of the disease. In the United Kingdom, 57 percent die. France and Germany fare slightly better at 49 percent and 44 percent, respectively. At 30 percent and 25 percent, respectively, death rates from prostate cancer in New Zealand and Canada are still well above that of the United States.

Also, the number of patients per doctor is much lower in the US than the UK and Canada:

U.S. physicians see an average of 2,222 patients per year, but physicians in Canada and Britain see an average of 3,143 and 3,176, respectively (see Figure 2).20 Family practitioners in Canada bear even higher patient loads—on the average, more than 6,000 per year.

And US patients have a better chance of getting high tech medical procedures and have more access to high tech equipment:

When Americans see their doctors, they’re more likely to receive treatments with high tech equipment. As Figure 4 shows, the use of coronary bypass surgery in the United States is slightly more than three times higher per capita than in Canada and almost five times higher than in Britain.23 The rate of coronary angioplasty in the United States is almost five times higher than in Canada and almost eight times higher than in Britain. The rate of renal dialysis in the United States is almost double that of Canada and almost three times that of Britain. Britain was the codeveloper with the United States of kidney dialysis in the 1960s, yet Britain consistently has had one of the lowest dialysis rates in Europe.

Today Britain has only half the number of CT scanners per million population (6.5) as the United States (13.6). Although critics of the U.S. health care system claim that we have too much technology, all the evidence suggests that our counterparts have too little—as a result of the conscious decisions of government officials. Britain’s NHS has also skimped on the newer Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanners that can detect disease throughout the body, including aneurysms or tears in the aorta, strokes, and tumors. Britain (at 3.9 MRI scanners per million population) has fewer than half as many as the United States (8.1 per million). There is strong evidence of a general underuse of other valuable therapies as well.

Canada also compares unfavorably with the United States in access to high-tech equipment. On a per capita basis, the United States has more than three times as many MRI units as Canada, and almost twice as many CT scanners per capita as Canada.28 Per person, the United States has nearly four times as many lithotripsy units—which avoid expensive and invasive surgery by using sound waves to destroy kidney stones and gallstones. As of November 2001, Canada had only three public-sector Positron Emission Tomography (PET) scanners—and one of those only operated one evening a week—compared to 250 in the United States.

In addition, much of the medical technology that is available in Canada is archaic and ineffective. In Canadian hospitals, for example, 63 percent of all general X-ray equipment is severely outdated, and half of all diagnostic imaging units require replacement.

Lack of access to technology affects health outcomes. Whereas the Canadian Society of Surgical Oncology recommends that cancer treatment, including surgery, begin within two weeks after preoperative tests, one study found that the median waiting time for surgery varied from almost a month (29.0 days) for colorectal cancer to more than two months (64.0 days) for urologic cancers. The annual rate of cancer deaths is 70 percent higher in the United Kingdom than in the United States—275 deaths per 100,000 and 194 deaths per 100,000, respectively.

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 12:19 am

Joy Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 1:27 am
todd:

And US patients have a better chance of getting high tech medical procedures and have more access to high tech equipment:

Don't kid yourself. I know someone who was (retired recently) a general with the State Department. That's that very comprehensive total coverage. He went to the doctor and found serious blockage (cardiovascular) – he had to have a quadruple bypass. He was in Asia.

He chose Singapore. They have a means of heart surgery without the machine, so there's no brain damage – they don't stop your heart or something. Worked out great.

Medical tourism. Do a Google. I still see no good reason to deny basic health care to anyone in this country. Especially just so you (or someone you love) can access a PT scanner. That's absurd.

Comment by Joy — December 5, 2008 @ 1:27 am

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Joy, if I may, I must strenuously object to you characterizing my desire to see a individual freedom-centric approach to medical care as callous indifference to the point of denying 'basic health care to anyone in this country'. I would think, considering the gadzillion pixels you've shaped rebuffing critics who distort your arguments, you'd choose your own critical words a bit more carefully.

First, the reference to the high tech access, which is by no means rebutted by your anecdote, was an answer to the fallacious argument the US pays more but gets comparatively inadquate healthcare, which you essentially wrote a few posts up.

We pay more and we get more… doctors, MRIs, cancer survivors. That is an answer which calls your claim into question, is it not?

Does Singapore have Universal Coverage? The paper I linked is comparing the US with other western nations with universal plans.

But say I yield your point for the sake of discussion – say we really don't have a better chance to access high tech procedures and equipment.

Aren't the cancer survival rates a better indicator of quality of health care than life expectancy or infant mortality rates?

There are 12 myths in the paper I linked, all data claims are sourced (many from official government reports), I hope you read it.

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 9:59 am

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Aren't the cancer survival rates a better indicator of quality of health care than life expectancy or infant mortality rates?

I certainly don't think so. I would have thought life expectancy was a pretty good indicator of the overall health of a group or nation, and by extrapolation the efficacy of its health care, social support, health education and also the quality of life such as diet, exercise and stress levels of its populace.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 10:10 am

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Alan,

That's the point exactly. You cannot extrapolate anything useful about our health care system from life expectancy. Especially in the US, which has the most culturally and genetically diverse populace on the planet.

Those favoring Uni-care want to use that statistic as evidence the US system is worse, yet in the US, the odds of surviving cancer are better. Now which of the two do we know for fact depends almost entirely on the health care system – surviving a disease which requires medical care or life expectancy, which is an average that doesn't correlate well with actual medical care?

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 11:51 am

don provan Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I have a story in my head. I think it's from the old, original Route 66 TV series. A family living in the middle of nowhere has nothing to their names but a ramshackle little house and a car up on blocks out back in the weeds. The car's engine just bearly runs, and there's little reason to think it could actually move the car. But we'll never know, because the car's wheels have no tires and don't touch the ground. Besides, the car is so dilapidated that even if it did move, it would fall apart before it got to the road out front.

The family's life is desperate and empty, but they go out and get in that car every Saturday night, start up the engine, and spend a happy evening pretending that they're going somewhere.

Hearing that Dembski has abandoned EF is like hearing that their engine has rusted away.

Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 1:02 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Don, that's cruel.

Cruel but hilarious.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 1:21 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Now which of the two do we know for fact depends almost entirely on the health care system – surviving a disease which requires medical care or life expectancy, which is an average that doesn't correlate well with actual medical care?

Todd,

Why do I get the impression you are clutching at straws? Causes of cancers are many, and probably many of them still unknown, but there are many environmental and lifestyle triggers. Screening and health education (anti-smoking campaigns for example) may reduce the incidence and improve early detection alleviating the need for high tech invasive surgery or radiotherapy.

Most big improvements in human health were not the result of medical intervention. Proper sanitation worked wonders in 19th century London. Although I will allow the cause of cholera was worked out by a medical doctor. His treatment was to close contaminated wells.

Your drug companies and high tech medical services cost you a disproportionate amount of your budget.

Life expectancy is a better indicator in my view. But, then I live in France and am just a smug git.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 1:35 pm

Bradford Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Alan Fox:

Life expectancy is a better indicator in my view. But, then I live in France and am just a smug git.

If that signifies anything more than chest thumping then one would expect the life expectency of France to exceed that of a sub-group of Americans with health care policies. IOW be able to attribute the causes and effect to health insurance.

Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2008 @ 1:41 pm

Bradford Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Alan Fox:

Your drug companies and high tech medical services cost you a disproportionate amount of your budget.

This is a half truth. The part left unsaid is that such services are not prescribed intelligently due to the intrusion of insurance influences and liability concerns on sound medical decision making.

Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2008 @ 1:45 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
The part left unsaid

I absolutely agree with. You leave the unregulated market to deal with health and you reap the consequences.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 1:51 pm

Bradford Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
You leave the unregulated market to deal with health and you reap the consequences

Influences stemming from the judicial branch of government and insurance monopolies are not free market in nature.

Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2008 @ 1:54 pm

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Alan,

We don't have an unregulated market in the US, especially in Health care and insurance.

And how is it I'm grasping at straws? I didn't say anything about the causes of Cancer – just the survival rate of two specific cancers, both of which require treatment (ie, direct contact with the health system) to survive. Life expectancy averages in no way indicate direct contact with the health system.

Your insistence otherwise seems the grasping position…

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 2:06 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Life expectancy averages in no way indicate direct contact with the health system.

It is a statistic that is more meaningful when comparing countries, as the criteria are so simple. Yes, I am sorry I am gloating a bit. My personal experience perhaps has coloured my judgement.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 2:13 pm

Joy Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
todd:

I must strenuously object to you characterizing my desire to see a individual freedom-centric approach to medical care as callous indifference to the point of denying 'basic health care to anyone in this country'. I would think, considering the gadzillion pixels you've shaped rebuffing critics who distort your arguments, you'd choose your own critical words a bit more carefully.

Excuse me? I offered some figures from the World Health Organization, NIH, CDC, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Congressional Budget Office, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Institute of Medicine at NAS, the US Census Bureau, the Kaiser Foundation and other sources about how the US stacks up on some key indicators of health. Like infant mortality, life expectancy and access to basic care. You responded with a claim by the Cato Institute's agenda-ridden libertarians that boils down to "but we rich people get to play with some really cool machinery!"

…which I do not consider a refutation of the facts as they are documented about the actual situation in this country in regards to infant mortality, life expectancy and access to basic health care. In their own words, here is Cato's mission:

The mission of the Cato Institute is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.

Limited government and free markets haven't expanded access to basic health care in this country. In fact, they've driven the entire world economy to its collective knees (another half a million filed for unemployment in November – the biggest jump in 34 years – for a running total of 1.25 MILLION just since September).

We pay more and we get more… doctors, MRIs, cancer survivors. That is an answer which calls your claim into question, is it not?

From here:
In 2003, approximately 61 million adults, or 35 percent of individuals ages 19 to 64, had either no insurance, sporadic coverage, or insurance coverage that exposed them to high health care costs.[23] Employers that do provide insurance, on average, spend between 4.6 and 8.7% of their payroll in health insurance premiums. The cost of health care premiums is rising much faster than the general rate of inflation or employee wages. Since 2001, premiums for family coverage have increased 78%, while inflation has risen 17% and wages have risen 19%, according to a 2007 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.[24]

Does Singapore have Universal Coverage? The paper I linked is comparing the US with other western nations with universal plans.

Singapore has a universal health care system where government ensures affordability, largely through compulsory savings and price controls, while the private sector provides most care. Overall spending on health care amounts to only 3% of annual GDP. Of that, 66% comes from private sources.[42] Singapore currently has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world (equaled only by Iceland) and among the highest life expectancies from birth, according to the World Health Organization.[43] Singapore has "one of the most successful healthcare systems in the world, in terms of both efficiency in financing and the results achieved in community health outcomes," according to an analysis by global consulting firm Watson Wyatt.[44]

But say I yield your point for the sake of discussion – say we really don't have a better chance to access high tech procedures and equipment. Aren't the cancer survival rates a better indicator of quality of health care than life expectancy or infant mortality rates?

The uninsured don't get any cancer treatment, so their cancer survival rates are dismal, todd. That's a total no-brainer. No fancy machine changes that FACT one bit.

Comment by Joy — December 5, 2008 @ 2:47 pm

Bradford Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Alan Fox: It is a statistic that is more meaningful when comparing countries, as the criteria are so simple. Yes, I am sorry I am gloating a bit. My personal experience perhaps has coloured my judgement.

I don't know what your personal experience is but for it to be relevant it must correlate that experience to healthcare in France in a causal way. Japan led the world in life expectency for many years. Did that mean Japan had the best health care system?

Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2008 @ 3:51 pm

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Joy,

I find it simply amazing that you, who has seen her fair share of Darwinist/materialists zealots who will discredit any claim, no matter how reasonable or well sourced, if it comes from any organization friendly to ID theories, would answer the SOURCED claims in the Cato paper because of their political views! (AND LITTLE ELSE) Steven Meyers' paper which lost Sternberg his job is not discredited by those types because he got his data wrong, but because he's a DI fellow! His expertise and training (Sternberg's too, for that matter) are dismissed because of the conclusions they advocate!

Now I have no problem raising potential bias of omission from advocacy groups, which is why the sources and methods matter and why I raised them earlier in this thread, which you've apparently not bothered to check for yourself, because you seem hell bent on confirming your own biases on this issue.

Are there any FACTS you dispute in the Cato paper or is it enough to dismiss them as libertarians?

Do you think NIH bureaucrats might personally benefit from such a huge expansion of government power? After all, who is going to decide which drugs 'we' can afford and which treatments can be afforded where?

For your edification, the sources upon which the Cato paper are based varied, but the data is neutral regarding libertarians. Some of the sources are from the same organizations you listed!

What's more, the uninsured have NOTHING to do with the comparative look at prostrate and breast cancer mortality rates, because those are an indicator of the quality of the SYSTEM, which you have questioned by way of a spurious correlation with life expectancy. (which you brought up again and which I answered previously, it is a USELESS indicator in country as diverse as the US, when diets and the number of cars also shorten lives)

Those mortality rates are of all those diagnosed, so every person figured in the final was diagnosed and treated by the system. In the US, the country with the least universal insurance has the BEST survival rates. And you want to credibly maintain health care in the US is worse? By the way, can you source the rate of cancer deaths due to lack of insurance?

Finally, I have to take issue with this shibboleth:

Limited government and free markets haven't expanded access to basic health care in this country. In fact, they've driven the entire world economy to its collective knees (another half a million filed for unemployment in November – the biggest jump in 34 years – for a running total of 1.25 MILLION just since September).

What fantasy country have you been living in that has limited government and free markets? Libertarians have not been in power, Progressives and Conservatives have. Our government is ANYTHING but limited – what in the sam hell are you talking about? Free markets?? Are you even remotely familiar with the regulations required to do business in this country? Seriously, can you back any of that rhetoric up with any unimpeachable facts?

I have a challenge – you name any industry or component of industry which operates in an unregulated or seriously deregulated 'free market', and I'll point you to the regulations which prove you wrong.

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 4:17 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I don't know what your personal experience is…

I was diagnosed with prostate cancer and treated here very efficiently and quickly here in France. I mentioned it on another thread. I was referred to my surgeon who examined me, got me in for a biopsy a week later, and three weeks later I had my operation by the same guy. I felt like a valued customer rather than a burden on the system, as would have been the case back in the UK, who also operate a universal healthcare system. The calm, cleanliness, efficiency were all in stark contrast to my previous experience in the UK.

Did that mean Japan had the best health care system?

I don't know, but I suspect it is excellent. The Japanese diet is, I believe, a great contributor to their health and longevity.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 4:20 pm

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Alan Fox: It is a statistic that is more meaningful when comparing countries, as the criteria are so simple. Yes, I am sorry I am gloating a bit. My personal experience perhaps has coloured my judgement.

Alan, do deaths by accidents account for a part of the average life expectancy? Does the fact that Asians live longer on average than non-Hispanic whites, who live longer than than Hispanics, who live longer than blacks have anything to do with their genes? If so, how does one factor OUT of life expectancy rates those things which aren't related to the health care system?

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 4:28 pm

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
The Japanese diet is, I believe, a great contributor to their health and longevity.

If this is true, they how can their longevity in any way be a reliable indicator of the quality of their health care system?

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 4:30 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Steven Meyers' paper which lost Sternberg his job

Todd, using this example when complaining about discrediting claims! Sternberg was never employed by the Smithsonian but worked there as a research associate. He suffered nothing more than inconvenience when he had to move offices, and his status changed when the funding for his associateship expired and was not renewed. He was never fired because he was never hired. As far as I know he could still be researching there.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 4:31 pm

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Fine, it didn't lose him his job. It lost him his keys and privileges. The effort to harass him is well documented. And that is the point.

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 4:33 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Alan, do deaths by accidents account for a part of the average life expectancy?

Of course. That's why I said it was simple. Also deaths from murder, starvation, natural disaster, any cause. Its just births and deaths.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 4:36 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
And that is the point.

The point is you said he lost his job, when you know he didn't, as you admit when you get picked up on it.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 4:37 pm

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
And that is the point.

The point is you said he lost his job, when you know he didn't.

Didn't my last post say "Fine it didn't lose him his job"? That's what I like to call 'conceding the point'.

The point as it related to Sternberg was an aside to a larger point, which stands without it.

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 4:41 pm

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Of course. That's why I said it was simple. Also deaths from murder, starvation, natural disaster, any cause. Its just births and deaths.

So then you agree life expectancy rates cannot be causally correlated to the quality of a health care system?

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 4:43 pm

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
re: Sternberg

Alan,

By niggling over whether Sternberg was employed by the SI (which I never said) and lost his job, are you implying Sternberg wasn't harassed in his work place because he allowed publication of Meyers' paper?

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 4:46 pm

don provan Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Steven Meyers' paper which lost Sternberg his job is not discredited by those types because he got his data wrong, but because he's a DI fellow! His expertise and training (Sternberg's too, for that matter) are dismissed because of the conclusions they advocate!

Well, there's actually some question about what happened to who and what it had to do with this paper, but let's ignore that: are there really no cases where you would consider it reasonable to dismiss someone because of the conclusions they advocate? At some point, it becomes a waste of time listening to people using the same old arguments in favor of Ether, doesn't it?

Now if someone brought up new ideas about Ether, that would be different, but you can't reasonably cite that example in the case of the Meyers paper: it was just a rehash of the current state of "ID research"; I don't remember for sure, but I don't think Meyers claimed there was anything new in it.

Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 4:55 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
So then you agree life expectancy rates cannot be causally correlated to the quality of a health care system?

No. The overwhelming cause of premature deaths in peace time is disease. Life expectancy is a strong indicator of the quality of health and social infrastructure. For example murder rates might vary but the level of murders is low compared to all deaths, so distortions will not be significant enough to distort the overall figures. And anyway one could argue that murder rates are affected by the social infrastructure.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 4:55 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
The point as it related to Sternberg was an aside to a larger point

Sternberg sidestepped the usual peer review for Meyer, whose paper was not at all appropriate for a journal of taxonomy. For that, people, especially the publishers of the journal got upset and disavowed the paper. Some of his colleagues at the Smithsonian were mean to him and there were emails pressing for his dismissal. He was not dismissed. Nothing happened to him.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 5:11 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
BTW, Todd, would you like to tell us what was overlooked or ignored in Meyer's paper, Meyer, Stephen C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239. by the scientific community?

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 5:23 pm

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Alan,

I really don't care to discuss that controversy, I've read the emails in the public record and a lot of information when it was still news, but you mean to tell me, without any hint of the irony, that a paper about the origins of information in higher taxonomies was 'not at all appropriate' for a taxonomic journal?

Really?

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 5:49 pm

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
No. The overwhelming cause of premature deaths in peace time is disease. Life expectancy is a strong indicator of the quality of health and social infrastructure. For example murder rates might vary but the level of murders is low compared to all deaths, so distortions will not be significant enough to distort the overall figures. And anyway one could argue that murder rates are affected by the social infrastructure.

So now you've switched to social infrastructure from health care infrastructure? They aren't the same thing you know. Life expectancy cannot even really be correlated to quality of life, especially if the last decade or so is spent in declining health at a home.

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 5:52 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I really don't care to discuss that controversy,

Well, it has been pretty well milked to death by the DI and Ben Stein

I've read the emails in the public record and a lot of information when it was still news,

Me too. Go figure.

…but you mean to tell me, without any hint of the irony, that a paper about the origins of information in higher taxonomies was 'not at all appropriate' for a taxonomic journal?

I believe the title is somewhat misleading. The content is entirely different from the normal papers on taxonomic classification. See here for a list of the usual content.

Really?

Yes, really.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 6:06 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
So now you've switched to social infrastructure from health care infrastructure? They aren't the same thing you know. Life expectancy cannot even really be correlated to quality of life, especially if the last decade or so is spent in declining health at a home.

Where are you going with this, Todd? I put a link to a comparison of health care systems by country because it cropped up as a side issue on another thread, and I thought it might be interesting. You seem to have an agenda. But, accepting quality of life is not taken into account when looking at life expectancy, the same qualification will apply to any country that extends the life of its citizens beyond reason. The same applies with all your other objections. All countries will have some anomalies, most countries will have similar anomalies. But most countries manage to keep some basic records of births and deaths. More detailed statistics from different countries will be less comparable for all sorts of reasons.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 6:21 pm

Bradford Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Alan Fox:

BTW, Todd, would you like to tell us what was overlooked or ignored in Meyer's paper, Meyer, Stephen C. 2004. The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117(2):213-239. by the scientific community?

How did this come out of a healthcare discussion?

Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2008 @ 6:33 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
How did this come out of a healthcare discussion?

Ask Todd:

Steven Meyers' paper which lost Sternberg his job is not discredited by those types because he got his data wrong, but because he's a DI fellow!

Link

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 6:41 pm

Bradford Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
How did this come out of a healthcare discussion?

Alan Fox: Ask Todd:

Todd: Steven Meyers' paper which lost Sternberg his job is not discredited by those types because he got his data wrong, but because he's a DI fellow!

Alan, does anyone believe that either:
a) Everyone who gets data wrong is publically pilloried or
b) If Sternberg had not been with the DI he would have caused a firestorm

is plausible?

Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2008 @ 6:48 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Alan, does anyone believe that either:
a) Everyone who gets data wrong is publically pilloried or
b) If Sternberg had not been with the DI he would have caused a firestorm

is plausible?

I'm having trouble parsing. I don't know what others believe on many issues.

People who publish erroneous data usually get caught out when experiments are repeated.

If the only difference in the scenario was that he was not with the DI, then I guess he would still not have been dismissed.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 5, 2008 @ 7:12 pm

don provan Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
a) Everyone who gets data wrong is publically pilloried or

Public humiliation is normally reserved for people abusing their powers to advance an unworthy personal agenda.

b) If Sternberg had not been with the DI he would have caused a firestorm

I doubt many of the people that complained or otherwise abused Sternberg knew or cared that he was with the DI, or even knew what the DI was. I don't think Sternberg's being with the DI was the cause of anyone's outrage, but his relation to an ID advocacy group confirmed the motive to people that learned about it.

DI and DI supporters may have helped turned a minor transgression into a firestorm because of Strernberg's relation, but I wouldn't really know about that.

Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 7:29 pm

todd Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Sternberg wasn't with the DI at the time, Meyer was.

Comment by todd — December 5, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

Joy Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Alan Fox:

Where are you going with this, Todd?

Darned if I can figure it out. Apparently it's about Americans having the world's best health care even though whole swaths of the population can't even get the basics. And (?) that because we have cool diagnostic machines that cost a whole lot, it's okay for whole swaths of the population to have no health care at all. Nor (apparently) is our strictly rationed-by-class health care system any less successful at preserving and maintaining health than systems in countries where all citizens have access to medical care cradle to grave. No matter what the standard measurements of health care success actually demonstrate, as reported by various national and international agencies charged with keeping track of these things.

Everything's great, don't complain. At least, that's what it looks like from here.

Comment by Joy — December 5, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

Bradford Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
dp:

Public humiliation is normally reserved for people abusing their powers to advance an unworthy personal agenda.

Sure. That's why Barney Frank goes his merry way after publicly proclaiming there was no need to be concerned about the integrity of loans and then reversing himself a short time later to call for bailouts. Abuse of power generally goes unpunished.

b) If Sternberg had not been with the DI he would have caused a firestorm

I doubt many of the people that complained or otherwise abused Sternberg knew or cared that he was with the DI, or even knew what the DI was. I don't think Sternberg's being with the DI was the cause of anyone's outrage, but his relation to an ID advocacy group confirmed the motive to people that learned about it.

The only reason Sternberg became a public figure was because ID was associated with the controversy. No ID. No controversy. No headlines.

Comment by Bradford — December 5, 2008 @ 11:06 pm

todd Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Joy,

Shame on you. You are acting exactly like an ID detractor on this issue.

Why not answer the questions I posed to you? They are a clue to where I'm going, which isn't where you disingenuously suggest.

Comment by todd — December 6, 2008 @ 12:42 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Personally I think no thread should ever have two Todds. So just assume I said the exact opposite of everything that other todd said thus canceling out his content.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — December 6, 2008 @ 1:03 am

Bradford Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 1:19 am
I made some inquiries about government sponsored programs in NJ known as NJ Family Care. Better than no healthcare- true but, some of the problems associated with the program include an unwillingness of highly skilled doctors to take part in the program, a long waiting period (between 60 and 90 days) between submission of an initial application and the conferring of benefits and difficulty in getting detailed information about participating physicians prior to having to choose a health carrier. Concern about government regulation of the patient/physician relationship was a major objection to the Clinton proposal in the 90s and a reason it went down to defeat. Some sort of package is highly likely in the near future but a mandatory requirement that the 59% of Americans who are now beneficiaries of private plans, be included in a government sponsored program, could kill an otherwise possible bill. This could test the power of the left of center faction of the Democratic Party. If they insist on having all major provisions go their way they could be surprised at the political cost that will ensue. I would focus on the uninsured if I were them. That would alleviate their stated concerns without antagonizing most Americans. We will see.

Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2008 @ 1:19 am

Bradford Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 1:20 am
Todd B: Personally I think no thread should ever have two Todds. So just assume I said the exact opposite of everything that other todd said thus canceling out his content.

Too late. My apologies to Todd (no B) for assuming he was Todd B.

Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2008 @ 1:20 am

Joy Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
todd:

Shame on you. You are acting exactly like an ID detractor on this issue.

LOL!!! My not-good experiences with the health care system in this country have nothing to do with what anyone's position on ID might be. It's not a matter of metaphysical beliefs or philosophical systems, it's a matter of whether or not tens of millions of US citizens can go to a doctor when they need to. FACT is, tens of millions of them can't. Nothing in your political or metaphysical positions changes that REALITY into something it's not.

Why not answer the questions I posed to you? They are a clue to where I'm going, which isn't where you disingenuously suggest.

Okay. Went back and found some question marks in a post to me, and one to Alan Fox. Here you go…

Are there any FACTS you dispute in the Cato paper or is it enough to dismiss them as libertarians?

First, you dismissed both infant mortality and life expectancy as a reasonable measure of population health, which is of course related to health care. Standard measures (of generalities) used to rate population health all over the world.

On infant mortality, we are near the bottom for 'first world' nations. Much of that has to do with issues related to unavailability of pre-natal care. Which, btw, many insurance companies no longer cover (and which states have been acting to force the issue as infant mortality jumped).

All of the factors that go into producing healthy babies are addressed by a decent health care provider – or his/her surrogate in the education department (like Bradley). Proper nutrition, avoidance of harmful foods and substances, recognition of conditions detrimental (and quick response by the health care provider), etc., etc. If a large percentage of babies born are underweight, premature, suffer conditions that could have been prevented, etc., then the lack of access to good prenatal and delivery care definitely affects infant mortality rates.

People who would like to use government to force young women to have babies they don't want them should care as much for babies that ARE wanted. By providing ready access to good prenatal and delivery care. Do you deny this?

Life expectancy is another generally reliable measure of overall health of the population. You complain that some ethnic groups live longer than others, without acknowledging this nation embraces all of them as citizens – we are not a monochromatic country, we're a nation of immigrants (and natives that don't live as long as any of the other groups, because they have notoriously lousy health care). It all averages out.

Good health care includes education about self-destructive behaviors and diets. It includes accessibility of treatments for disease, injuries and chronic illnesses for everyone in all groups. It includes using all those nifty machines to diagnose issues in ALL the people, not just the lucky few. When my daughter developed epilepsy, her expensive specialist insisted on an MRI twice a year. She was out of work for two years, could not get Medicaid because of the years-long waiting list, and we could not afford this. So she got her meds from a sympathetic local pharmacist who understood the problem (because she's not the only person who has that problem).

So along with infant mortality rates, the average life expectancy is a reasonable measure of the general health of the population. Even accidents and violence contribute to the numbers, and the health care system intervenes in those figures too – trauma care, stitching cuts and setting bones, doing emergency surgery, dispensing antibiotics to fight infections, etc. People with no access to the system die younger and in way more pain than those who do. Do you deny that too?

Do you think NIH bureaucrats might personally benefit from such a huge expansion of government power? After all, who is going to decide which drugs 'we' can afford and which treatments can be afforded where?

NIH bureaucrats dole money for research, assess the efficacy of treatments and coordinate efforts on upcoming public health issues. "Who" decides are the health care providers. That has always been the case. What we can afford is that which we can afford. If we have trillions to bail out criminals, we can afford universal, single-payer health care.

You're dealing with bureaucrats either way. I'd just as soon see the murder by spreadsheet insurance crowd go extinct. Your mileage may differ, but that means exactly zip to me.

And you want to credibly maintain health care in the US is worse? By the way, can you source the rate of cancer deaths due to lack of insurance?

Cancer Prevention and the Uninsured:

The Institute of Medicine has estimated that lack of insurance coverage increases the odds of overall mortality by 25%.(8) Studies that examine people with cancer find adjusted risks of death as much as nearly 50% higher for uninsured breast cancer patients and 40% higher for uninsured colon cancer patients, than among their privately insured counterparts.

Uninsured, Others Less Likely to Receive Breast Cancer Test:

An American Cancer Society study finds breast cancer patients who lack insurance, who come from areas with lower education levels, who are African American, or who are older are less likely to get a key diagnostic test to make appropriate treatment decisions. The study finds those groups are ten percent to three times more likely not to receive tests to determine if the breast cancer has spread to axillary (underarm) lymph nodes. An abstract of the study was presented at the American Association for Cancer Research conference on the health disparities, held November 27-30 in Atlanta.

Colorectal Cancer and the Uninsured:

Despite the fact that colorectal cancer screenings have proven to reduce cancer mortality, according to a report in the July 2008 issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, only half of men and women in the U.S. are screened. This problem is made worse for people who lack health insurance or whose health plan does not cover screenings. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), among the uninsured population only 24 percent of individuals are screened for colorectal cancer compared with 50 percent who are insured. Additionally, barriers to screening still exist among racial and ethnic lines with African Americans and Hispanics being more likely to lack health insurance, thus less likely to be screened.

Cancer quicker to claim uninsured

Uninsured cancer patients are nearly twice as likely to die within five years as those with private coverage, according to the first national study of its kind and one that sheds light on troubling health care obstacles.

That's four links off the first page of Google results on "cancer mortality uninsured," out of 115,000 returns. Do you still want to deny that the uninsured die of cancer at a much greater rate than the insured?

What fantasy country have you been living in that has limited government and free markets?

Deregulation has caused all sorts of problems, even during an administration that oversaw the biggest expansion of government power in history. Bush is busy deregulating even more with EOs before he leaves office. You do know about melamine in food products from China, don't you? You might also be interested in the fact that kidney stones afflict US children at a rapidly increasing rate – kidney stones, by the way, are a primary symptom of melamine ingestion.

Are you even remotely familiar with the regulations required to do business in this country?

Yeah. In a number of applications. I don't think they're enforced nearly stringently enough, particularly when the subject is "Big Business."

Comment by Joy — December 6, 2008 @ 1:48 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Joy:

I think I can safely leave Todd in your hands. I'll just go and get the popcorn!

Comment by Alan Fox — December 6, 2008 @ 2:35 pm

Joy Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Alan, I'm fairly fatalistic about life and death on planet earth. Have come to the conclusion that ALL lives are complete, for all the purposes that life exists to bestow. Since we do not count – either in our general overviews of average health or in biological evolution's NS contingent – life that is never born, even an infant born alive and "allowed to die" has a beginning, a middle and an end.

But it just drives me bonkers when people who enjoy the top-end benefits of life in a capitalistic society claim that those benefits are exclusive to them and their peers, and the rest of us simply don't count (or don't suffer the deprivations we objectively suffer). I find that an amazingly callous and entirely UN-Christian attitude, especially considering how much of the Christian charity expended throughout the world comes in the form of basic nutrition and health care services. Obviously, these things are important to quality of life, and the "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" mindset is an abomination.

As the "richest nation the world has ever known," we should have INVENTED universal health care. As a "Christian Nation" we should all have long been concerned about racism and inequality of opportunity and gross disparities in health care. Instead of all these recent hate-inspired campaigns against gays and pregnant teenagers and people of color and sick/injured low-wage immigrants and denial of follow-up treatment to the brave veterans who serve our country proudly, churches should always have been on the front lines to extend the benefits to all of our citizens and those here for schooling, because they married a citizen, and those working at exhausting jobs none of us like to think about (much less DO).

Class-based eugenics is alive and well in the world today, most glaringly in the US of A. And its primary tool is the rationing of health care by class. Wall Street produces nothing of actual value. Yet when their ponzi schemes and criminal activities bring them up short on margin calls, we think nothing of bailing them out to the tune of trillions. Where was their risk? Where's that "free market" zest? But if your company needs a line of credit in order to pay your employees this month, forget about it. You're nobody, worth nothing, go starve or freeze in the dark and no, you can't get that bypass operation this year. Got cancer? Die, you worthless bastard!

Makes me literally sick to my stomach. Which might be okay since it means I won't be eating too much and getting obese any time soon. But it's winter now, the garden is fallow, and I've no weeds to battle or bugs to spray with Granny's Satanic Habanero Sauce (works really good). Instead, I'm nagging grandson to split some wood and fill the stove, thinking about making some whole grain sourdough bread to warm the kitchen, and hoping those moles that keep re-growing after removal on my hubby's back are not melanoma – which his grandfather, uncle and aunt died of. He's laid off until February, may not have a job to go back to if credit's not restored.

The whole scenario being played out here is absurd in the extreme. And honestly, it's getting harder and harder every day to tell the good guys from the bad without a program. I still believe life itself is designed, though. It's life's degrees of freedom that lead to this kind of social crap.

Comment by Joy — December 6, 2008 @ 4:36 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Joy,

Don't hold back, say what you really feel.

Actually, I have remarked more than once already, that, with the exception of the reality imagination issue, you floor me with your shoot-from-the-hip straight talking.

As the "richest nation the world has ever known," we should have INVENTED universal health care. As a "Christian Nation" we should all have long been concerned about racism and inequality of opportunity and gross disparities in health care.

As a foreigner who is an immigrant in another foreign country, I wouldn't dare say such a thing. Does anyone else see a disparity between the claim that the US is or should be a "Christian nation" and some of the ancillary views expressed by those who espouse a Christian viewpoint?

Wall Street produces nothing of actual value.

One good thing to emerge from the current mess may be the realisation that money has no inherent value, and is merely a way of comparing the value of goods and services.

nstead, I'm nagging grandson to split some wood and fill the stove,

We heat our house on wood, mainly coppiced evergreen oak which we buy, supplemented by "souches", old vines stocks that we can sometimes collect from local vine growers when they replant with a "better" variety. Renewable energy rocks.

sourdough bread

We have a group that meets over a meal once a month called "The Country Club" where we all bring a contribution for the meal based on a country (drawn from a hat) A couple of months ago it was the US, and the pumpkin soup and sourdough bread was a great success.

I still believe life itself is designed, though.

I don't know. I doubt it. Still we can't agree on everything.

Comment by Alan Fox — December 6, 2008 @ 5:31 pm

Bradford Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
This from Yahoo news:

White House press secretary Dana Perino said that was central to any agreement, along with requirements that the carmakers swallow tough business decisions and taxpayers be protected.

"Taxpayers should not be asked to finance assistance for automakers without a strong likelihood that they will be paid back," Perino said in a statement before Bush left Washington to attend the Army-Navy football game in Philadelphia.

Why should Americans fund Detriot carmakers. These are not expected to be loans but money that is not paid back. The politics of fear is pushing this. Horrible things will happen if one or more of the big three goes under. Can't leave things in the hands of a bankruptcy judge either. The sky is falling. Who gets bailed out next. Horrible things will happen if we do not give away our money to… Fill in the blank with the next troubled corporation.

Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2008 @ 5:57 pm

Joy Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Bradford:

Why should Americans fund Detriot carmakers. These are not expected to be loans but money that is not paid back.

Realistically (and I've thought about this a bit, despite my anger), I'd rather we bail out vital industry than Wall Street. At least industry does produce real wealth, which Wall Street does not.

That doesn't mean I think Detroit should keep making vehicles no one buys, that's just dumb. But they factor large in our ability to re-tool alternative vehicles for the future, as well as in producing necessary agricultural, industrial and defense-use vehicles we can't do without if we really care about National Security. Besides, I just can't imagine an America without Corvettes and Mustangs. Yeah, that's weird, but a dozen of those teensy EVs don't add up to a single 'vette.

I'm guessing our return on this investment – with serious oversight and cooperation in re-tooling for alternative fuels – will be considerably better than anything we could ever hope for from AIG. As with the billions we've floated to banks (and on which we will never see a dime's return), somebody up there has missed the point. We did it to free up the credit markets so the entire economy wouldn't crash. We bought Fannie and Freddie to re-work mortgages in light of reduced property values, etc., etc. It would have been far cheaper just to pay everything off directly and start over fresh.

Meanwhile, in the banking sector, recently bailed-out Bank of America earned kudos on Thursday by refusing to loan any more money to coal mining giants engaged in "Mountaintop Removal" mining. My state legislature is so averse to this environmental horror that there's a bill pending to forbid purchase by any of our in-state power or industrial users of coal mined by this method. Great! Then… then…

On Wednesday all of the UNION [UEW] workers at Chicago-based Republic Windows and Doors were informed that Friday would be their last day of work, and that the company, as ordered by Bank of America who suspended their line of credit, would not honor their contracts for severance pay, sick days and untaken vacation.

So the workers who came in on Friday to get their final checks didn't leave. The company isn't attempting to evict them, either. We gave BoA $25 billion dollars to free up lines of credit. They have freed nothing whatsoever. Just to make myself even more unpopular around here, I'll go ahead and say Hooray for the workers!!! It's well past time for the working class in this country to make some demands the capital class can't ignore. New housing may be in a serious slump, but people in old houses/building still need doors and windows. I hope they win this one, BEFORE it happens everywhere across the country. If selling out to the workers could save airlines, it can save other industries in the heartland producing actual products with value.

The bankers bleeding us dry and sitting on the money need to be taken to the woodshed. They deserve it.

Comment by Joy — December 6, 2008 @ 6:35 pm

Joy Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Bradford:

Who gets bailed out next. Horrible things will happen if we do not give away our money to… Fill in the blank with the next troubled corporation.

BTW, it's not "our money." It's just dead trees and ink, they can print as much of it as they think they need, for whatever purpose they care to put it to. It's our slavery at issue here, so far into the future it includes generations yet unborn. A government that believes it "owns" those slaves can do anything it wants, and the slaves have nothing to say about it.

Until they all say "no." General strikes work pretty well. Heck, if all the women who have waited generations for equal rights, pay and benefits had just decided to stay home with the kids for a month or two back a few decades ago, they'd have equal rights, pay and benefits right now. I never met a corporate executive who could write in English or knew the alphabet for filing purposes. The whole country would have ground to an immediate halt, and complaints would never have been registered because there were no "operators standing by."

Comment by Joy — December 6, 2008 @ 6:53 pm

Bradford Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Joy: That doesn't mean I think Detroit should keep making vehicles no one buys, that's just dumb. But they factor large in our ability to re-tool alternative vehicles for the future, as well as in producing necessary agricultural, industrial and defense-use vehicles we can't do without if we really care about National Security. Besides, I just can't imagine an America without Corvettes and Mustangs. Yeah, that's weird, but a dozen of those teensy EVs don't add up to a single 'vette.

I'd miss some of the vehicles too but we have the power to regulate cars sold in this country. We do that with respect to both the U.S. German and Japanese subsidiaries as well as the imported versions. The foreign subsidiaries and their parent companies are able to comply and make profits. The Detriot three are not.

I'm guessing our return on this investment – with serious oversight and cooperation in re-tooling for alternative fuels – will be considerably better than anything we could ever hope for from AIG.

That may be but we are setting a very bad precedent when we begin bailing out poorly performing corporations. This will not stop with the car companies. The reason is a cabal of politicians and CEOs will be able to scare Americans until they simply shrug and accept bailouts as routine. That's scary and immoral IMO.

Comment by Bradford — December 6, 2008 @ 7:10 pm

Alan Fox Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
General strikes work pretty well. Heck, if all the women who have waited generations for equal rights, pay and benefits had just decided to stay home with the kids for a month or two back a few decades ago, they'd have equal rights, pay and benefits right now.

Lysistrata indeed!

Comment by Alan Fox — December 6, 2008 @ 7:18 pm

Joy Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Bradford:

I'd miss some of the vehicles too but we have the power to regulate cars sold in this country. We do that with respect to both the U.S. German and Japanese subsidiaries as well as the imported versions. The foreign subsidiaries and their parent companies are able to comply and make profits. The Detriot three are not.

That's why the Detroit three hire high-dollar lobbyists to convince politicians (under the table) that CAFE standards shouldn't apply to them, should not be tightened, etc. But it's not like they can't make a decent car. Those 'vettes get nearly 30 mpg with 400 horses under the hood!

What we DON'T need are Vipers. We were driving through SMNP this summer and stopped off at on the TN-NC border way station. There was some kind of Viper rally going on, there were a couple dozen of 'em at least taking up all the parking spaces. Now, if they were kit cars you build in your garage, it's one thing. But whoa! These candy-and-glass beasties get maybe 10 mpg, and you can kit 'em up to get as much mileage as a Sherman tank (4). They cost $125K off the line, and you'd never dare park one at a grocery store parking lot for fear of loose carts. Ridiculous. And that was right in the middle of $5 a gallon gasoline, when our ever-so valuable tourist industry (1 out of every 4 dollars making the circuit here) crashed big time.

Detroit can lose about 3/4 of its production items, still make money and offer fine union jobs. America makes the best work trucks on the planet, many of those are "Flex-Fuel." Spin-offs make construction equipment, tractors, combines and semis. Not to mention tanks and armored military vehicles and such. That's real production of real goods with real value. Sure, I always buy used, but even that market's going to crash if nobody's buying new.

Rented a Prius to drive to Florida for the daughter-wedding weekend before last. Cost $7 more a day than the Ford, but what a nifty-cool car! So quiet at stoplights I'd have real trouble knowing it was still running. Got 48+ mpg average, both ways. Gas is now cheap(er), but even with the extra $21 for the rental we made it on pocket change.

Hope they'll come on the used market soon, even if I do think the silly onboard computer's a bit of overkill and distraction – mere gadgetry. Detroit could do that if it tried. Deal is, they haven't been trying.

Comment by Joy — December 6, 2008 @ 8:31 pm

Joy Says:
December 6th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Oh, and a note to the whole world NOT going under if Detroit and its subs do… GM sacrificed Saturn on the altar last week. Hope you don't have one…

Comment by Joy — December 6, 2008 @ 9:06 pm

Joy Says:
December 7th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
For those who still believe American businesses should be the primary health insurance provider in the nation, and refuse to believe there's a correlation between access to health care and the state of a nation's health, the New York Times has a story today entitled:
When a Job Disappears, So Does the Health Care

This is a story about the bankruptcy of a cookie factory in Ohio that left 275 people out of work and without the "excellent" health insurance through BCBS the company had provided.

“This shows why — no matter how bad the condition of the economy — we can’t delay pursuing comprehensive health care,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio. “There are too many victims who are innocent of anything but working at the wrong place at the wrong time.”

The story talks about how, because the company owed BCBS money when it went bankrupt, the employees had no recourse to Cobra even if they could have afforded it on their unemployment benefits (typically less than $1,000 per month)…

Ms. Darling, who was pregnant when her insurance ran out, worked at Archway for eight years, and her father, Franklin J. Phillips, worked there for 24 years.

“When I heard that I was losing my insurance,” she said, “I was scared. I remember that the bill for my son’s delivery in 2005 was about $9,000, and I knew I would never be able to pay that by myself.”

So Ms. Darling asked her midwife to induce labor two days before her health insurance expired.

“I was determined that we were getting this baby out, and it was going to be paid for,” said Ms. Darling, who was interviewed at her home here as she cradled the infant in her arms.

As it turned out, the insurance company denied her claim, leaving Ms. Darling with more than $17,000 in medical bills.

Typical. How does this affect the health of people without insurance?

M. Harvey Brenner, a professor of public health at the University of North Texas and Johns Hopkins University, said that three decades of research had shown a correlation between the condition of the economy and human health, including life expectancy.

“In recessions, with declines in national income and increases in unemployment,” Mr. Brenner said, “you often see increases in mortality from heart disease, cancer, psychiatric illnesses and other conditions.”

Hospitals also feel the pinch, with charity care write-offs increasing by millions. Those fancy diagnostic machines and testing procedures are also being idled, with "huge decreases" in MRIs, CT scans, stress tests, cardiac catheterization tests, knee and hip replacements and elective procedures. And despite changes to the bankruptcy laws written by the credit card industry some years ago, fully half of personal bankruptcies in this nation are due to medical bills people cannot pay.

It logically appears that a universal, single-payer health care system will have to be instituted in this country or we risk losing not only a lot of citizens, but our health care delivery system itself. At that point, arguing about who's got "the best health care in the world" will be entirely moot, and even todd will be jetting off to some other country if he needs to see a doctor.

Comment by Joy — December 7, 2008 @ 1:56 pm

steve Says:
December 17th, 2008 at 1:37 am
# don provan Says:
December 5th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I have a story in my head. I think it's from the old, original Route 66 TV series. A family living in the middle of nowhere has nothing to their names but a ramshackle little house and a car up on blocks out back in the weeds. The car's engine just bearly runs, and there's little reason to think it could actually move the car. But we'll never know, because the car's wheels have no tires and don't touch the ground. Besides, the car is so dilapidated that even if it did move, it would fall apart before it got to the road out front.

The family's life is desperate and empty, but they go out and get in that car every Saturday night, start up the engine, and spend a happy evening pretending that they're going somewhere.

Hearing that Dembski has abandoned EF is like hearing that their engine has rusted away.

Comment by don provan — December 5, 2008 @ 1:02 pm

Days after admitting that the EF is wrong, after critics said "Dude, we told you that like ten years ago" Dembski got his feelings hurt and announced that oh yeah, well, just for that, he was going back to the EF and he was going to use it all the time, so screw you guys!

Basically Dembski was admitting that he was going to knowingly say incorrect things in the future just to spite scientists. My only wonder is, does he really think he can say that and keep the faith of his creationist flock? Since nobody at UD or the DI has publicly cut ties with him over this, amazingly, I think he was right–he can actually admit that he's lying, and the IDers can't bring themselves to reject him. They've got too much time and effort invested in ID to accept the truth.

Comment by steve — December 17, 2008 @ 1:37 am

Can't We All Be Friends?

114 Responses to “Can't We All Be Friends?”

Featured Books