http://www.npr.org/template...hp?storyId=112818960



Oddly, you probably won't find that on Drudge. Mostly because the support stems from the fact that most doctors have a positive relationship with Medicare - which pays out regularly and doesn't stiff patients who need tests and services provided by doctors (i.e. they get paid to do their jobs, which happens to coincidentally save the lives of people.)

There's no reason and I mean NO REASON not to have an option, which people can voluntarily BUY into that provides the SAME COVERAGE OUR CONGRESSMEN GET. Doctors overwhelmingly think it's a good idea, and... this is important...

The United States has the highest infant mortality rate (23rd, tied with Slovakia) and the lowest life expectancy (50th about the same as Albania) of all the industrially advanced nations.

How does that not strike you as pathetic? I mean, loser levels of pathetic. The richest nation in the world is in the same ballpark as SLOVAKIA AND ALBANIA!?

our health issues are due to lifestyle

but, good luck getting the greedy to agree

I looked for how the surevey was structured and could only find this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/...a_healthcare_doctors


When given a three-way choice among private plans that use tax credits or subsidies to help the poor buy private insurance; a new public health insurance plan such as Medicare; or a mix of the two; 63 percent of doctors supported a mix, 27 percent said they only wanted private options, and just 10 percent said they exclusively wanted public options.


The question is will the new proposal be "such as Medicare" or a new public insurance that will eliminate private insurance.

With the question structured that way which of the three would anyone choose.

That's the big argument.

If the goverment was just expanding meicaid/medicare to encompass more people I don't think we would be having all this discussion. Both systems have been in practice for a while and while not perfect do have alot of the issues worked out.

They have proposed a new "unkown" system instead of an upgrade of the current one.

Kind of like buying a 84 fiero vs. an 88.

[This message has been edited by mike-ohio (edited 09-15-2009).]

Having "NPR" in the web address does not lend any credibility, to me.

[This message has been edited by Rainman (edited 09-15-2009).]

Public Option? Where's the option?
Give me the ability--without threat of tax, fine, paying for Demi drug addict, obese Ollie, Andy alcoholic, or penalty--of choosing any health plan--their health plan--or no health plan, and that is a public option.

Forcing me, in any way, to pay for stupid people's poor choices is not what I call a public option.

Of course health care professionals are in favor of it--the more people who are insured, the more customers they will have.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: .... Forcing me, in any way, to pay for stupid people's poor choices is not what I call a public option. .....

even tho that is what exists RIGHT NOW?

I'd be interested to hear frontal lobe's take on this.

From your graph it looks like only 10% support a public only option. 63% a combination like we currently have.

[This message has been edited by Fiero STS (edited 09-15-2009).]

My doctor complained that Medicare reduced her compenstion by 16% this year. There may be a backlash against accepting Medicare patients, then what do the seniors do. They'll go to those non english speaking doctors for healthcare as they somehow have found a way to get around the medicare reimbursement rates and can make a profit from the system.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: even tho that is what exists RIGHT NOW?

How do you figure that? Because of higher costs that take a part of my medical costs to pay for them? Sorry--I don't have medical costs. $1600 actual medical expenditures in the last 20 years--tell me how I'm paying for them now.
Higher taxes?
Are my taxes going to decrease after this plan goes into effect? no--of course not.
I'll be paying in more--either thru their plan or thru a fine--and of course more taxes, PLUS what I am already paying.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: How do you figure that? Because of higher costs that take a part of my medical costs to pay for them? Sorry--I don't have medical costs. $1600 actual medical expenditures in the last 20 years--tell me how I'm paying for them now. Higher taxes? Are my taxes going to decrease after this plan goes into effect? no--of course not. I'll be paying in more--either thru their plan or thru a fine--and of course more taxes, PLUS what I am already paying.

to start with - there is the easy button: "Cigarette Taxes" - yes - you pay RIGHT NOW. and, you think that aint gonna up again?
you dont pay major medical? you think that money is just sitting there, in a box, waiting for you? NO. it is paying for an illegal aliens health care RIGHT NOW
yes you will pay more taxes. sorry that is such a new thing for you.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: to start with - there is the easy button: "Cigarette Taxes" - yes - you pay RIGHT NOW. and, you think that aint gonna up again? you dont pay major medical? you think that money is just sitting there, in a box, waiting for you? NO. it is paying for an illegal aliens health care RIGHT NOW yes you will pay more taxes. sorry that is such a new thing for you.

So, you admit there is no advantage for me to just roll over and accept this "reform", which is nothing more than a subsidy for the medical industry?
Yes, I have major medical, but it is unused by me thus far--and the costs of the policy have remained the same for at least 10 years.
Are you saying cig taxes will drop after this thing gets implemented? No--of course not.

Again--where's my "option"?

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-15-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: There's no reason and I mean NO REASON not to have an option, which people can voluntarily BUY into that provides the SAME COVERAGE OUR CONGRESSMEN GET. Doctors overwhelmingly think it's a good idea, and... this is important... The United States has the highest infant mortality rate (23rd, tied with Slovakia) and the lowest life expectancy (50th about the same as Albania) of all the industrially advanced nations. How does that not strike you as pathetic? I mean, loser levels of pathetic. The richest nation in the world is in the same ballpark as SLOVAKIA AND ALBANIA!?

God I'm sick of hearing these "spin" numbers. (You forgot the ever popular "US pays 37% more for healthcare than other developed countries" crap)


So A. Infant mortality the truth:
The U.S. has an infant mortality rate of 6.5 per 1,000 live births, which means that 6.5 infants die per 1,000 born before they turn 1. Let's look closer.

Consider that in the United States, the physicians at our private and public hospitals and academic institutions work very hard to make sure a pregnancy results in a live birth. We have excellent ob/gyn's and obstetricians who deal with high-risk pregnancies. We also have excellent nurses and support staff at hospitals and that improves perinatal outcomes.

Every effort is made to deliver a viable infant to give it a chance at life. Fortunately, we also have excellent neonatologists who seem to do miracles with babies who are barely able to survive outside the womb. But they cannot do miracles, and a significant number of newborns who start life on ventilators and IVs will die. If professionalism and moral values are not enough to encourage these professionals (and I believe they are), then liability is another motivator.

In countries that do not have the same quality of care, and the same dedication to pre-term newborns, many high-risk pregnancies result in fetal demise near term and, consequently, the delivery of a deceased newborn. But fetal death, even 30 minutes before delivery, is not infant mortality. It is fetal death and does not add to infant mortality statistics.

Let's look further. The 37 countries that have better infant mortality than the United States have an average infant mortality of 3.8 per 1,000 live births. So of their pregnancies that result in a live delivery, 2.7 infants more (supposedly) than the U.S. (per 1,000 live births) live past one year of age.

In the United States, health care officials are fairly compulsive about statistics and their accuracy, and data surrounding deliveries is scrutinized and secure. So my best guess is that our statistics are reliable.

But look at some of the countries that do better than the U.S.: Cuba, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Thailand and others. Doesn't sound quite right, does it? Does anyone outside these countries verify the accuracy of their statistics? Not likely. And do their doctors work exceptionally hard to deliver a live newborn when the likelihood of newborn death shortly after delivery is high? It's a lot harder to get that baby out alive than dead.

As for our lower life expectancy you're completely dismissing our population diversity, lifestyle and dietary habits. If we were all forced to eat fish and rice and ride a bike to day every day then I'm guess our life expectancy would rocket, but that would just add to more end of life medical expenses.

quote Originally posted by Uaana: God I'm sick of hearing these "spin" numbers. (You forgot the ever popular "US pays 37% more for healthcare than other developed countries" crap) So A. Infant mortality the truth: The U.S. has an infant mortality rate of 6.5 per 1,000 live births, which means that 6.5 infants die per 1,000 born before they turn 1. Let's look closer. Consider that in the United States, the physicians at our private and public hospitals and academic institutions work very hard to make sure a pregnancy results in a live birth. We have excellent ob/gyn's and obstetricians who deal with high-risk pregnancies. We also have excellent nurses and support staff at hospitals and that improves perinatal outcomes. Every effort is made to deliver a viable infant to give it a chance at life. Fortunately, we also have excellent neonatologists who seem to do miracles with babies who are barely able to survive outside the womb. But they cannot do miracles, and a significant number of newborns who start life on ventilators and IVs will die. If professionalism and moral values are not enough to encourage these professionals (and I believe they are), then liability is another motivator. In countries that do not have the same quality of care, and the same dedication to pre-term newborns, many high-risk pregnancies result in fetal demise near term and, consequently, the delivery of a deceased newborn. But fetal death, even 30 minutes before delivery, is not infant mortality. It is fetal death and does not add to infant mortality statistics. Let's look further. The 37 countries that have better infant mortality than the United States have an average infant mortality of 3.8 per 1,000 live births. So of their pregnancies that result in a live delivery, 2.7 infants more (supposedly) than the U.S. (per 1,000 live births) live past one year of age. In the United States, health care officials are fairly compulsive about statistics and their accuracy, and data surrounding deliveries is scrutinized and secure. So my best guess is that our statistics are reliable. But look at some of the countries that do better than the U.S.: Cuba, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Malta, Slovenia, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Thailand and others. Doesn't sound quite right, does it? Does anyone outside these countries verify the accuracy of their statistics? Not likely. And do their doctors work exceptionally hard to deliver a live newborn when the likelihood of newborn death shortly after delivery is high? It's a lot harder to get that baby out alive than dead. As for our lower life expectancy you're completely dismissing our population diversity, lifestyle and dietary habits. If we were all forced to eat fish and rice and ride a bike to day every day then I'm guess our life expectancy would rocket, but that would just add to more end of life medical expenses.

PWNED !!!

"The survey was published online Monday by the New England Journal of Medicine. It was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a health care research organization that favors health reform."

A doctor who was interviewed at the 912 protest:

Dr. David Dunch had never been to a political demonstration before. Yet on Saturday Dunch, a surgeon who has practiced for 25 years in Youngstown, Ohio, found himself marching down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, wearing a white medical coat with a small American flag tucked into the breast pocket, explaining what's wrong with President Obama's national health care proposals.

"It's a mistake," Dunch says. "It's going to result in ultimate rationing and limiting care to our elderly. We need universal access of patients with pre-existing illnesses. We need to open up the 50 states to all insurance plans. We need tort reform. We don't have to trash the current system."

Dunch has come here with his wife, who is a nurse, because he believes the president is "telling half-truths" by citing the support of the American Medical Association to suggest that most physicians favor Obamacare -- when in fact the AMA represents a relatively small minority of doctors. The situation is enough to turn a private physician into a protester. "I've never been political before," Dunch says. "This is atypical for me."

=======================================================================

Sure, it sounds like a good idea to have choices. Unfortunately, that's not what Obama ultimately wants. He wants government run, single payer. In his (and other Democrats) OWN WORDS:



I'll bet NPR won't tell you about that, Jeremiah.

It would appear, based on Obama's OWN WORDS, that he's LYING to us now about eliminating private healthcare. Therefore, your the results of your survey would become moot, because there WOULDN'T be a choice. I wonder how THAT would poll amongst doctors?

"Public healthcare"
Can you be more specific please?


Another note, Infant mortality is defined as the number of deaths of infants (one year of age or younger) per 1000 live births. Wikipedia has the US at 6.3 per 1000 live births. It has 190 countries with higher rates listed than the U.S. (if you include all countries, I realize you said industrialized).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...lity_rate_%282005%29

I don't think this is off topic, as healthcare money is spent for it.
In 2005 this points to there having been a staggering 291 abortions per 1000 live births in the U.S., 22.6%?
http://www.johnstonsarchive...ab-unitedstates.html
Unless I calculatred things wrong, that is 291 killed intentionally for every 6.3 that died unintentionally.
I keep thinking I had to do the math wrong right? Or did i not understand the chart?

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-15-2009).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: "Public healthcare" Can you be more specific please? Another note, Infant mortality is defined as the number of deaths of infants (one year of age or younger) per 1000 live births. Wikipedia has the US at 6.3 per 1000 live births. It has 190 countries with higher rates listed than the U.S. (if you include all countries, I realize you said industrialized). http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...lity_rate_%282005%29

From the above link, the UK, Canada on the UN list, and the EU on the CIA list aren't much higher up. They have single payer, government run, "everyone is covered" healthcare. Doesn't seem like that much of an improvement, considering the cost.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: From the above link, the UK, Canada on the UN list, and the EU on the CIA list aren't much higher up. They have single payer, government run, "everyone is covered" healthcare. Doesn't seem like that much of an improvement, considering the cost.

well, they are
simple

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I'd be interested to hear frontal lobe's take on this.

First of all, I don't fault Jeremiah for repeating accurate statistics about infant mortality. That is what is out there. That is what he has been told.

What I DO fault is that he has abundant education to be able to ask a few simple questions about the statistics. How is the reporting done? What is the general health habits of the populations being compared, etc.


In this particular case, it is well known that the reporting of infant mortality isn't comparable. We try to save 24 week gestational age babies. If they die, we report it. Some countries don't report those. Some don't even try to save them. So there is your explanation of the infant mortality issue.

Here is the bigger question. Jeremiah didn't know it. Hey, you can't check into EVERYthing thrown out there. No problem. BUT THE PEOPLE PROMOTING THIS STATISTIC AS A PROBLEM KNOW IT. So what does that say about people that INTENTIONALLY use misleading information?


The idea that most doctors have a POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP with Medicare is ridiculous. We get paid 22 cents on the dollar versus the 58 to 65 cents on the dollar from insurance companies. For the sickest patients who have more health problems because they are older. Let's see. Less pay for more work. YES. Please give me more of that.

What you don't seem to get is that doctors are generally benevolent, and feel some obligation to mankind, so they do the medicare work as sort of an obligation, even though they basically "break even" on it. THEN, they make their PROFIT on private insured patients.

If you make private insured patients into the equivalent of medicare patients, then the profit is gone. Well, by by benevolence at that point.

Doctors having a positive relationship with medicare! Wow. You couldn't be more out of touch than that.


One other thing to remember. There are a lot of liberal democrat doctors as well. So the fact that in spite of that, only 10% supported a public-only option is noteworthy.


So to take this and make it some kind of ringing endorsement from the medical community is wrong.

quote Originally posted by Rainman: Having "NPR" in the web address does not lend any credibility, to me.

That's because you have no idea what good journalism is.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: That's because you have no idea what good journalism is.

hahahahahahahaha. Yeah. OK.

Good journalism would be completely impartial. NPR isn't. Most news organizations these days aren't. Pity.

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 09-15-2009).]

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: First of all, I don't fault Jeremiah for repeating accurate statistics about infant mortality. That is what is out there. That is what he has been told. What I DO fault is that he has abundant education to be able to ask a few simple questions about the statistics. How is the reporting done? What is the general health habits of the populations being compared, etc. In this particular case, it is well known that the reporting of infant mortality isn't comparable. We try to save 24 week gestational age babies. If they die, we report it. Some countries don't report those. Some don't even try to save them. So there is your explanation of the infant mortality issue. Here is the bigger question. Jeremiah didn't know it. Hey, you can't check into EVERYthing thrown out there. No problem. BUT THE PEOPLE PROMOTING THIS STATISTIC AS A PROBLEM KNOW IT. So what does that say about people that INTENTIONALLY use misleading information? The idea that most doctors have a POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP with Medicare is ridiculous. We get paid 22 cents on the dollar versus the 58 to 65 cents on the dollar from insurance companies. For the sickest patients who have more health problems because they are older. Let's see. Less pay for more work. YES. Please give me more of that. What you don't seem to get is that doctors are generally benevolent, and feel some obligation to mankind, so they do the medicare work as sort of an obligation, even though they basically "break even" on it. THEN, they make their PROFIT on private insured patients. If you make private insured patients into the equivalent of medicare patients, then the profit is gone. Well, by by benevolence at that point. Doctors having a positive relationship with medicare! Wow. You couldn't be more out of touch than that. One other thing to remember. There are a lot of liberal democrat doctors as well. So the fact that in spite of that, only 10% supported a public-only option is noteworthy. So to take this and make it some kind of ringing endorsement from the medical community is wrong.

Nice reality check.
Thank you.
Seriously.

So what is the fix for this Jerimiah? The government pays the doctors with taxpayer money?

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-15-2009).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: That's because you have no idea what good journalism is.

Yes ! Only state-run media like Pravda is legitimate journalism !! Like comrade Charlie Gibson who hasn't heard of ACORN pimpdaddy bidness services division !!

[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 09-15-2009).]

quote There's no reason and I mean NO REASON not to have an option, which people can voluntarily BUY into that provides the SAME COVERAGE OUR CONGRESSMEN GET. Doctors overwhelmingly think it's a good idea, and... this is important

What's important, is the fact that that % goes WAY down for a plan that drops private insurance options. Take a poll that has only 2 choices--private--or govt and see which has the highest %.

And, I suspect, by a VERY large majority. No one likes govt in their private or commercial business except those who have become accustomed to others taking care of them.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-15-2009).]

quote There's no reason and I mean NO REASON not to have an option, which people can voluntarily BUY into that provides the SAME COVERAGE OUR CONGRESSMEN GET. Doctors overwhelmingly think it's a good idea, and... this is important

There's no reason you cannot move to the appropriate state and purchase the same coverage that your favorite congresscritter (let me guess... Bernie Sanders ?) has. The only downside under the current system is you have to crack open that wallet and actually PAY FOR your coverage of choice.

There's absolutely no reason why anybody but you should be paying for whatever coverage you choose to buy... or anything else you choose to buy, for that matter.

See, I'm all FOR choices.

[This message has been edited by D B Cooper (edited 09-15-2009).]

quote Originally posted by maryjane: What's important, is the fact that that % goes WAY down for a plan that drops private insurance options. Take a poll that has only 2 choices--private--or govt and see which has the highest %.

Thanks

That is part of what I had in mind when I said:
"Public healthcare" please be more specific.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-15-2009).]

No. 10% support only having to deal with the feds and no private companies.

quote Originally posted by Fiero STS: From your graph it looks like only 10% support a public only option. 63% a combination like we currently have.

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: the US has a terrible heath care system that fails to serve the interest of a significant fraction of the population.

What fraction is that ? The fraction that would rather spend all their money on crack and lotto tickets than keep an insurance policy active ?

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: No. 10% support only having to deal with the feds and no private companies.

clear as mud.

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: Because .... prenatal care is a definitive measure of how health services are rendered then it's obvious, if only qualitatively, that the US has a terrible heath care system that fails to serve the interest of a significant fraction of the population.

Jeremiah, prenatal care is available to anyone who asks for it, whether they can pay for it or not. Courtesy of the taxpayer. There are many programs of which I can not name. But, even after birth, post pregnancy health care is available also. As are the nutrients of life, food. Anyone needing food get food stamps and those with children get more. In addition, there is a supplemental program, the name I do know, called WIC. Women and Infant Children.

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: You want to base data off assumptions on how other countries conduct their reporting? You know well enough that's not data - that's conjecture.

Actually, it would be data and how is important. If you were correct, and you are not, that it was conjecture, then your whole point of this thread is flawed, as your information is conjecture, .

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 09-15-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: What are the "real statistics"? You want to base data off assumptions on how other countries conduct their reporting? You know well enough that's not data - that's conjecture.

Let me try to be more clear.

They are comparing infant mortality. The first thing, then, is to define infant mortality to report.

These are not ASSUMPTIONS. Countries on the list have said they don't report premature babies as an infant mortality. They don't report them and they don't even try to save them. The U.S. does A LOT of that kind of attempt to save a premature baby. When the baby dies, THEY REPORT IT as an infant mortality.

So it looks like our infant mortality rates are higher.
Regarding the differences in cultures--it isn't an indictment of the U.S. healthcare system if U.S. women are doing drugs, including alcohol, etc. etc. It isn't an indictment of the OTHER COUNTRIES healthcare systems, either.

We can OFFER to provide all the prenatal care we want. It doesn't MAKE women take them.

If you REALLY think these numbers reflect on bad performance of the U.S. health care community as compared to the rest of the world, then it is because you WANT to believe it.


You can change the U.S. health care system all you want, but it isn't going to change our ranking in infant mortality. It has pretty much hit it's limit in how far down it will go. To go lower would require PATIENTS to do things differently. We have seen that U.S. citizens don't CHOOSE to have a healthy lifestyle.

So YOU will spend WAY more money due to the horrible U.S. infant mortality performance, and there will be no change and you will just waste money. To "fix" a problem that doesn't exist, other than in poor statistical reporting.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: That's because you have no idea what good journalism is.

Is ABC on that list of yours?
https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...068224.html#lastpost

[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 09-15-2009).]

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: .... it's obvious, if only qualitatively, that the US has a terrible heath care system that fails to serve the interest of a significant fraction of the population.

As I said, prenatal care is available. Care for the poor is also already available through the free clinics. They use a sliding scale to charge for their services. People just do not want to pay. True, there are long lines at the free clinic. What the dems want to do is make us all wait in the same long line.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Pray do tell. You respect NPR, fine. Give me some other examples of good journalistic sources.

Sure. Reuters. AP. I'll stop there, because you won't agree with the rest. Because you're as slanted as they come. Actually most of you here are. Not because WE disagree, but because you disagree to such an extreme measure with most of the country on most issues. You're the right wing "base". Mmm, now I'm thinking about chicken wings. Damn I'm hungry.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Sure. Reuters. AP. I'll stop there, because you won't agree with the rest. Because you're as slanted as they come. Actually most of you here are. Not because WE disagree, but because you disagree to such an extreme measure with most of the country on most issues. You're the right wing "base". Mmm, now I'm thinking about chicken wings. Damn I'm hungry.

Current polling would indicate otherwise but, it's your story, stick with it.
I think what you see here is consistency with the rest of the country swinging back to the right but, as always, that's just my perspective.

Ron

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Current polling would indicate otherwise but, it's your story, stick with it. I think what you see here is consistency with the rest of the country swinging back to the right but, as always, that's just my perspective. Ron

Oh that's not true. Current polling would say that the majority of Americans want health care reform.

They just differ on individual questions about specific plans.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: ... you're as slanted as they come. Actually most of you here are. Not because WE disagree, but because you disagree to such an extreme measure with most of the country on most issues. You're the right wing "base". Mmm, now I'm thinking about chicken wings. Damn I'm hungry.

You know this how? It seems a little dismissing.
Watch out for your mind because if you only hang around and listen to people who agree with you it tends to limit understanding and create illusions. That goes for both "sides".

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 09-15-2009).]