Woo Hoo Page Two

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

So only 10% would like a single payer system that is run by the Feds?

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

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: 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.

Since I break out in hives every time I get close to a liberal web site, you got a link?
With one sentence from Obama, 90% of Americans would approve of his handling of the health care issue. Of course 10% never have an opinion.
"This Government take-over of health care is a bad idea, and I am abandoning my efforts"'

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

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: 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.

Asking a sincere question because I don't know what the polls are referring to.

"Health care reform" is SO vague a term.


Do they want GOVERNMENT directed health care reform?
Do they want INSURANCE reform?
Do they want LOWER COST as the goal of reform?
Do they want ALL AMERICANS COVERED as the goal?
Do they want a public option?


Because it isn't helpful to say they JUST differ on the individual questions about specific plans. Those are the MAJOR differences that people have. Thos differences are no small thing.

So to lump everyone together into we want health reform doesn't represent some common ground.

Yeah, but only the far left is proposing such a system. The current proposal would be similar to the system they have in France, where the Government offers an insurance option which you can purchase at a discounted rate - discounted because it would be non-profit and because it would be subsidized.

But you would still have to pay for it. It's not free insurance. It's just administered by the feds as a nonprofit.

quote Originally posted by Fiero STS: Woo Hoo Page Two So only 10% would like a single payer system that is run by the Feds?

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: Yeah, but only the far left is proposing such a system. The current proposal would be similar to the system they have in France, where the Government offers an insurance option which you can purchase at a discounted rate - discounted because it would be non-profit and because it would be subsidized. But you would still have to pay for it. It's not free insurance. It's just administered by the feds as a nonprofit.

And which of the five bills presently being considered, six if you count the one BO has in his head, has this option?
Hard to keep track of this crap.
Maybe this is why some are worried and want to see the plan before it is law.
Oh yeah show us the data.

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

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You say that the US calculates its IMR data much more stringently than the rest of the world (which it doesn't and you certainly haven't proven that) and then you suggest Americans are more likely to be drug abusers while pregnant (which may or may not be true, I have never seen any evidence to suggest it.) Either way, you're not offering any facts. You have provided no references, no data. Show me the money... or the data, as it were. My data comes from the CIA and the UN, which both agree - the US sucks, on average. Now, I'd like to see yours (data).

Where does the UN get it's USA infant data?
Where does the CIA get it's USA data from?

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

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: 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.

My reply was not in direct relation to the insurance question currently being discussed but, more to your statement regarding the Conservative folks on this forum disagreeing with the Liberal folks and where the rest of America stands on the issue. At least that's what I thought you were trying to communicate.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: 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.

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

But, as I said earlier, it's all about perspective. Based on all the polling I'm seeing, the rest of this country is swinging back to the right.

Ron

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

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. You say that the US calculates its IMR data much more stringently than the rest of the world (which it doesn't and you certainly haven't proven that) and then you suggest Americans are more likely to be drug abusers while pregnant (which may or may not be true, I have never seen any evidence to suggest it.) Either way, you're not offering any facts. You have provided no references, no data. Show me the money... or the data, as it were. My data comes from the CIA and the UN, which both agree - the US sucks, on average. Now, I'd like to see yours (data).

CBO says the same thing Frontal Lobe said--

quote Problems of definition and measurement, however, hamper cross-national comparisons of health statistics. Alternative measures of infant mortality may provide better information but cannot completely compensate for differences among countries in the overall rates of reporting of adverse pregnancy outcomes. For example, very premature births are more likely to be included in birth and mortality statistics in the United States than in several other industrialized countries that have lower infant mortality rates................Although the infant mortality rate is universally accepted as an indicator of health status, international comparisons are problematic. Many underdeveloped countries do not have functional vital registration systems and infant mortality rates have to be estimated indirectly or through samples. In developed countries, comparisons of infant mortality rates are complicated by differences in medical practices and reporting requirements. These problems have raised questions about the validity of ranking infant mortality rates on an international scale. This paper explores the extent to which the poor U.S. infant mortality ranking reflects a real difference in health status or is the result of variations in the ways births and infant deaths are defined and reported. The infant mortality rate and its components are defined and infant mortality trends in the United States and other countries are described. Subsequent sections of the paper discuss the measurement of perinatal mortality (mortality that occurs around the time of birth), risk factors for infant mortality, and federal and state initiatives to reduce infant mortality rates. .

you can download the pdf file here:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6219&type=0
I did not read the pdf file as I have problems with Acrobat Reader, so I can only post what is on the introduction page (html)
(yes, it's an old report, but still accurate in the disparity between this country's reporting of "live" births and how other nations do it)


The CIA--the entity that has lied to so many people, so many times, so often, regarding so many different subjects--and in fact their 2nd most important objective (intel gathering#1) is spreading dis-infomation, I don't see how they can be taken seriously by anyone. Are they not the ones, who at least in large part--led a President, virtually all of congress and most of America to believe Iraq had WMDs? And-- Is the head of the CIA an appointee by Obama?
Is the UN gleaning it's info on US infant mortality rates from the CIA by chance?
Just curious.

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-16-2009).]

There is already a PUBLIC healthy policy. Medicare, medicaid, Health Wave, WIC, S-Chip and so on.

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

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

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

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.

Slanted. Interesting that you chose that term. Likely the reason you will not list the rest. I would not say I am slanted. I look for both sides of a story and, I consider the source. The demographics of my existence would likely have a profiler classify me as a democrat. In fact, I voted in the democratic primaries instead of the republican primaries (choice of one) before the last general election as I wanted to advance certain candidates.
Slanted. I'll go with it. Let's look at NPR. Here are some of the comments on the ACORN scandal. Which NPR finally gave mention to after four or five days of it breaking. Good journalism is supposed to find a story, not report on reports of a story.

quote NPR story comments Peter Gehring (s7s) wrote: So how many more tapes need to come out before you cover this yourself NPR? Tuesday, September 15, 2009 2:11:22 PM Matt Peckinpah (PTATLECOM) wrote: I am dissappointed that NPR did not cover this story. I have not heard anything about this story on the NPR station I listen to. Why? Tuesday, September 15, 2009 1:47:51 PM mark young (shazza_bump) wrote: I am actually shocked to find this much coverage of the ACorn prostitution story on NPR. Tuesday, September 15, 2009 11:34:50 AM Ron Blyman (Sublyme) wrote: NPR, shame on you for giving this major story such meager coverage. Is this the best you can do for your listeners? Where is your outrage that any community organizer group would support what ACORN is seen to support in these videos? Monday, September 14, 2009 9:41:56 AM Anthony Masciello (TonyLM) wrote: I am concerned with paucity of coverage NPR has devoted to this story involving the abetting of child trafficking and prostitution. Sunday, September 13, 2009 9:14:46 PM frank ryan (fryan5) wrote: Chris, I completely agree. NPR has a shocking habit of trying to cover over any scandal with potential ties to Obama. Had GWB still been in office, NPR would have led the wave of protest and call for Congressional investigations. I can here the righteous indignation in Steve Inskeep's voice already. And, I probably would agree with Steve. Will investigations happen now? I doubt it. I don't think that NPR and the political establishment can "handle the truth". Witness the cases of Jones, Sunstein and Lloyd. NPR did a poor job covering Jones before Fox exposed him for the radical that he is. NPR has ignored the extreme positions Sunstein has promoted over the years (like his statement, "We might ban hunting altogether, at least if its sole purpose is human recreation"). And, NPR won't speak a word on Lloyd's thoughts on freedom of speech and talk radio? Why? Not sure, unless NPR stands to benefit from policies Lloyd may push. Saturday, September 12, 2009 8:05:11 AM Chris Pittsburgh (ChrisPittsburgh) wrote: Why hasn't NPR told us more about this situation? Knowing the relationship between our President and Acorn, shouldn't there be more research done here??? Thursday, September 10, 2009 10:18:12 PM

Now Conn, I am not wishing to knock you or your views. But, from curiosity, I looked at the coverage Reuters and the AP gave the ACORN scandal. Reuters has given it none. The AP, in the search query box using ACORN as a search term, redirected to a different news organization, The Herald News News From The South West which did go back to an AP article from New York. Again, another report of a report.
Where is this good journalism you speak of Conn ?

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 09-16-2009).]

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.

What strikes me as pathetic is that you would even make these comments about infant mortality IN THE CONTEXT OF HAVING A PUBLIC HEALTH OPTION.

I don't care enough about whether you believe it or not to look up the criteria again that each country uses to report infant mortality. I'm telling you it is. Because it is. If you don't believe it, that's fine with me. The U.S. reports infant mortalities differently than many countries and so the numbers are not comparable and so the rankings are not comparable.


What I am DEFINITIVELY saying is that using this ranking as a reflection of poor quality of the U.S. medical system is ludicrous. If YOU PERSONALLY are using it as such, you are foolish. If you are using it as an excuse for the government getting into health care, you are reckless.


Here. Read the blessed GOVERNMENT AGENCY CDC website:

http://www.cdc.gov/omhd/AMH/factsheets/infant.htm


They mention NOTHING about improving the health care system in the U.S. BECAUSE INFANT MORTALITY ISN'T A HEALTH CARE QUALITY MEASURE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

It is a measure of a society as a whole: food, poverty, health risks, lifestyles. It is NOT a measure of the quality of the health care.

Separate financial issue:

you mention a current proposal that would be similar to what is available in France. That plan is discounted because "it would be non-profit"...AND BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SUBSIDIZED.

Man, I LOVE euphemisms. You mean because THE GOVERNMENT WOULD TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM CERTAIN CITIZENS AND USE THAT MONEY TO PAY FOR PART OF THE INSURANCE FOR OTHER CITIZENS.

But you would still "have to pay for it". No. You would have to pay for PART of it.

Then you keep trying to obfuscate the issue by saying it would be discounted because "it would be non-profit". What you ignore is that fact that any financial advantage to a government system not needing to pay someone a profit is eaten up by and then EXCEEDED by the bureacracy inherent in something run by the government as well as the increased labor cost due to the non-productivity of government workers.

I've always found Reuters to be good, but they are mostly just a news gathering hub--they mostly take stories and articles from hundreds (thousands?) of independant sources and provide an outlet for those independants. That's just their business model.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Doc: Is it true the #1 cause of infant mortality is low birth weight--which is almost universally accepted to be a lifestyle/nutrition problem of the mother and not a medical problem? But, that's how we do things here in the US. We over eat--the wrong things--smoke, drink, do drugs---then expect the medical community to 'fix' our stupidity. Compared to virtually everywhere else in the world, we eat absolute crap and we eat it like there will be no other meal--ever.

Yes, but don't let the facts get in the way of intentional deception when it is justifiable because it is such a righteous "cause".

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: 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.

Wrong, if it's Obama's plan.

Health Care Reform

Forty-five percent (45%) of all voters nationwide now favor the plan while 52% are opposed. A week ago, 44% supported the proposal and 53% were opposed. (see day-by-day numbers).

“The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.”

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.

So, to boil it down... when you don't like someone else's statistical numbers, you doubt the numbers. That sounds very... republican.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: I've always found Reuters to be good, but they are mostly just a news gathering hub--they mostly take stories and articles from hundreds (thousands?) of independant sources and provide an outlet for those independants. That's just their business model.

Rueters, AP, and even NPR, are all sources I might read. Fact is, true journalism today is all but dead. A shame really, as it has been instrumental in keeping our country free.

quote Originally posted by Jeremiah: Show me the money... or the data, as it were. My data comes from the CIA and the UN, which both agree - the US sucks, on average. Now, I'd like to see yours (data).

The UN? What is their motivation?
You have a graph, a vague graph.

quote Originally posted by ktthecarguy: So, to boil it down... when you don't like someone else's statistical numbers, you doubt the numbers. That sounds very... republican.

That comment was stupid.

First of all, there isn't a valid reason to not like the numbers BECAUSE THOSE NUMBERS ARE NOT A REFLECTION OF QUALITY OF HEALTHCARE. They are a measure of a society, not a health care system. It is dishonest to use these numbers in the first place in ANY context of this health care "debate".

Secondly, the numbers smell fishy. You look at some of the countries that have better live birth rates than the U.S., and you have to wonder, can that really be true? The reason you wonder IS because of the phenomenal health care system we have in the U.S.

And then when you look at the numbers, you find out you aren't comparing apples to apples.

IF the numbers reflected reality, we would accept them.
Turning it around, you WANT the numbers to be real, even though they aren't. So you try to make them be real. And WHY do you want them to be real? Because YOUR side is using them in an erroneous, intentionally deceptive way to try to accomplish their goal.

That sound so very...democrat.

Taken from Investors Business Daily.
Here's some change you can believe in Jeremiah. At least compared to your assertion. There is no political agenda associated with this poll, but the colors are just as pretty.

quote from linky It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform."

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 09-16-2009).]

now the thread disappears?

no--now the accusations, the coveting and the whining starts.
It always does.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: no--now the accusations, the coveting and the whining starts. It always does.

Not till about noon or 1; when the libtards roll off the couch, put yesterday's clothes back on, do a couple bong hits, and begin a new day !

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Here you go bub ..... .... Republican up.

The middle figure is disturbing.
45 million new insured means we will need about 45% more doctors, not 45% less.
My son's wife is 38 and a damn good Urologist. She is socking money away left and right for an early out if this passes.
This is the disaster with this plan.
Oh well we can import the doctors from China.
If this crap passes you better order your Rosetta Stone package so you can communicate with your doctor.
Six months to get an appointment to see your doctor, plenty of time to learn a foreign language.

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: Not till about noon or 1; when the libtards roll off the couch, put yesterday's clothes back on, do a couple bong hits, and begin a new day !

I have to admit I laughed out loud. Howevermuch I tried not to.

AAAAARRRR ! 73% of pirates carry limes to ward off the scurvy.

quote Originally posted by D B Cooper: AAAAARRRR ! 73% of pirates carry limes to ward off the scurvy.

in 2010 and 2012 we will rid ourselves of the larbard pirates and scurvy rats.

(Stick that under the Nome rivet and blow it out your Charlie Noble.)