Fox dispels some myths about healthcare

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Mani
I'm not sure if making 50k a year automatically means they can necessarily afford health care. Are those household incomes? If so, would a family of 4 with that kind of income would probably just be trying to put food on the table let alone getting health insurance, which depending on preexisting conditions can cost hundreds or even thousands a month.

I'm also not sure that the waiting times are necessarily caused by UHC. The US generally has shorter hospital stays than other countries and I doubt this would change significantly with UHC.

Considering a family of 4 would only have to pay for the two parents, or maybe just one parent(in some cases the mother and the two children can be covered by SCHIP depends on the state).

Texas is the WORST state for childrens healthcare. A family of 4 making $44,000 or less are qualified for SCHIP in the state of Texas. In almost every other state its $60,000 or MORE. The state of New York it can range up to $72,000.

When it comes to a family of four, its more than possible for two healthy adults to get private insurance at $50k and then have their two children covered by the state.


The problem is private(non employment derived) healthcare for people that have lot of medical problems/pre-existing conditions.

 

[miniMUNCH]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH

Look... very few people think the healthcare system in our country is perfect.

But a huge change in the insurance provider/payer system is going to have a profound impact on our national budget as well as cause quite a fracas in the medical system itself.

Win the smoke clears and the facts are on the table We are really talking about less than 10% of the US population here (closer to 5% really) that can't afford PPO health insurance and don't qualify for government assistance.

There are other means by which we can reduce healthcare costs... for starters we can reign in marketing expenditures (balance the field so to speak) by health insurance companies, medical systems, and pharma/biotech, etc.

The marketing overhead of these companies plays a rather larger role in the overall cost of healthcare.

So go back to how it was and they can't advertise so freaking much. Every other commercial is some kind of drug. I forgot what law changed but they couldn't run TV adds or something like that.

Basically... yeah. Have the FDA step up organize and provide information on their website for what drugs, surgical devices, etc. are approved for what care and uses. Provide clinical trial reports and FDA scientist authored digests of the pertinent clinic trial data that is written in plain english so that the public can read up on what drugs, treatment options are available for, say, hepatitis B, for example. You could go to the site and check out the different drugs available and how well they work (side effects, clinical results, ongoing monitoring), maybe links to pertinent discussions of the virus and what not, etc.


We could create a small government office which does the same thing for medical care provider and payer systems... provide useful information and metrics for comparison, etc.

So in essence the FDA and possibly a second small government office would do the marketing for all these companies becuase they already have the information, had to investigate and approve the drug, medical device, surgical tool, etc. and they know why, and for what uses, they gave approval. It would be all too cost effective to make all information easily accessible and digestible by the average John Q taxpayer.

And actually, they could one step further and turn this central database into a useful tool for doctors and medical practitioners in general to stay abreast of what is available as far as treatment options, etc. Especially in terms of what is going to be available in the future.

 

[blackangst1]

Well if you dont want to believe the Fox story, how about the same info from other sources? Gonna discredit those too?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publi...006/9241563206_eng.pdf

http://liberty.pacificresearch...1020_Top_Ten_Myths.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99x...24/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf

http://www.commonwealthfund.or...update_final%20pdf.pdf


Whats the excuses now?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Mani
I'm not sure if making 50k a year automatically means they can necessarily afford health care. Are those household incomes? If so, would a family of 4 with that kind of income would probably just be trying to put food on the table let alone getting health insurance, which depending on preexisting conditions can cost hundreds or even thousands a month.

I'm also not sure that the waiting times are necessarily caused by UHC. The US generally has shorter hospital stays than other countries and I doubt this would change significantly with UHC.

If they are the only game in town and people think they are going for FREE they go more often!

The statistic quoted for wait times was for surgeries. Don't think many people will be getting surgeries that much more often just because they're free. [/quote]

Doctors will be getting a paycut so there will not be as many doctors.

There's already a shortage of docs, and tremendous number of people wanting to become one. Even if demand dropped by half, medical schools would still be bursting at the seams with qualified people wanting to become a doc. I honestly don't see salaries droppingmuch with UHC but even if they do, it won't affect demand for the profession one bit.

Government Employees holding shovels around one working nurse.

UHC doesn't call for government employees working in clinics. Even single payer uses the existing human resource infrastructure.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well if you dont want to believe the Fox story, how about the same info from other sources? Gonna discredit those too?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publi...006/9241563206_eng.pdf

http://liberty.pacificresearch...1020_Top_Ten_Myths.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99x...24/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf

http://www.commonwealthfund.or...update_final%20pdf.pdf


Whats the excuses now?

Haha... You do knwo the first link says the opposite of the fox story right? and I have not even got to the others.


From first link...
?The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than those in most other developed countries, and the gap between the U.S. infant mortality rate and the rates for the countries with the lowest infant mortality appears to be widening. :laugh:

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well if you dont want to believe the Fox story, how about the same info from other sources? Gonna discredit those too?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publi...006/9241563206_eng.pdf

http://liberty.pacificresearch...1020_Top_Ten_Myths.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99x...24/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf

http://www.commonwealthfund.or...update_final%20pdf.pdf


Whats the excuses now?

Haha... You do knwo the first link says the opposite of the fox story right? and I have not even got to the others.


From first link...
?The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than those in most other developed countries, and the gap between the U.S. infant mortality rate and the rates for the countries with the lowest infant mortality appears to be widening. :laugh:

That is why you can't trust Fox News. They'll cherry pick and distort the data so much, you won't even recognize it.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well if you dont want to believe the Fox story, how about the same info from other sources? Gonna discredit those too?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publi...006/9241563206_eng.pdf

http://liberty.pacificresearch...1020_Top_Ten_Myths.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99x...24/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf

http://www.commonwealthfund.or...update_final%20pdf.pdf


Whats the excuses now?

Haha... You do knwo the first link says the opposite of the fox story right? and I have not even got to the others.


From first link...
?The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than those in most other developed countries, and the gap between the U.S. infant mortality rate and the rates for the countries with the lowest infant mortality appears to be widening. :laugh:

That is why you can't trust Fox News. They'll cherry pick and distort the data so much, you won't even recognize it.

Did you guys not read the article? It explains that the CDC uses completely different definitions than the WHO. You guys are self owning yourself.

 

[desy]

Comparing wait times to Britain, Canada and Aus is disingenuis because NONE of those countries spend anywhere near the per capita money spent in the US 'usually bout half' and all citizens are covered,
So if everybody had health care in the US, wait times would stay the same?
If the other countries doubled their per capita spending they couldn't improve wait times?

Always the fuss over health care, the US has the best, albeit most expensive healthcare which not everyone has access to.
Most industrialized countries something else and consistently according to the WHO have higher measured overall care and health of its citizens

You'd think the US would want to improve?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well if you dont want to believe the Fox story, how about the same info from other sources? Gonna discredit those too?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publi...006/9241563206_eng.pdf

http://liberty.pacificresearch...1020_Top_Ten_Myths.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99x...24/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf

http://www.commonwealthfund.or...update_final%20pdf.pdf


Whats the excuses now?

Haha... You do knwo the first link says the opposite of the fox story right? and I have not even got to the others.


From first link...
?The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than those in most other developed countries, and the gap between the U.S. infant mortality rate and the rates for the countries with the lowest infant mortality appears to be widening. :laugh:

That is why you can't trust Fox News. They'll cherry pick and distort the data so much, you won't even recognize it.

Did you guys not read the article? It explains that the CDC uses completely different definitions than the WHO. You guys are self owning yourself.

By which you mean you are self owning yourself by getting into a circular argument?

 

[Moonbeam]

I like my socialized health care. I am insured by my employer who passes the cost on to those who buy our products and have to to survive but who have no health care themselves. Thanks chumps. You may be sick but I am OK. And fuck you too by the way. I'm where I am because I deserve it and you're a worthless piece of scum.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I like my socialized health care. I am insured by my employer who passes the cost on to those who buy our products and have to to survive but who have no health care themselves. Thanks chumps. You may be sick but I am OK. And fuck you too by the way. I'm where I am because I deserve it and you're a worthless piece of scum.

Just wait. As health costs continue to climb they will find an excuse to fire you when you get too old and feeble. Since you won't be able to afford insurance once you do get sick (it's not a matter of "if", it's only a matter of "when") you will have to sell off everything tp pay for those $300/pop pills..... unless of course you decide to self medicate with a 12 ga.

 

[CitizenKain]

Its funny how we pay more per person for healthcare then everyone else, get worse coverage and the possibility of bankruptcy, and people in the country are so completely idiotic they are proud of it.

 

[sandorski]

Title should be: Fox regurgitates some myths about healthcare

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well if you dont want to believe the Fox story, how about the same info from other sources? Gonna discredit those too?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.htm

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publi...006/9241563206_eng.pdf

http://liberty.pacificresearch...1020_Top_Ten_Myths.pdf

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99x...24/12-18-KeyIssues.pdf

http://www.commonwealthfund.or...update_final%20pdf.pdf


Whats the excuses now?

Haha... You do knwo the first link says the opposite of the fox story right? and I have not even got to the others.


From first link...
?The U.S. infant mortality rate is higher than those in most other developed countries, and the gap between the U.S. infant mortality rate and the rates for the countries with the lowest infant mortality appears to be widening. :laugh:

That is why you can't trust Fox News. They'll cherry pick and distort the data so much, you won't even recognize it.

Did you guys not read the article? It explains that the CDC uses completely different definitions than the WHO.

So BA posted the CDC link in support of Fox's claims because....?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Link

I know many who spend all day on MSNBC understand that the US has worse healthcare than Somalia, but in this article the author is a little more honest than many other sources at the moment. Here are some tidbits:

Myth: ?The U.S. has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world.?

Myth: ?The uninsured can?t afford to buy coverage.?...17.6 mn of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and 10 mn of those made more than $75,000 a year

<- I freakin knew it! A lot who cannot afford health insurance just don't want to pay for it, but can.

Myth: ?Nationalized health care would not impact patient waiting times.?...In 2005, only 8% of U.S. patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery.

Countries with nationalized health care had higher percentages with waiting times of four months or more, including Australia (19%); New Zealand (20%); Canada (33%); and the United Kingdom (41%).

As I've always maintained, this is inevitable.

Hopefully a few reading this who didn't know it will let it influence their conclusions instead of put a wall up against it because it's on Fox or too much effort to back out of their sureness.

Haha nice. "I know you people who spend all day watching a biased news network might think some wrong things about health care, so in order to dispel them I will provide you this link from an even more biased news network."

The infant mortality one is right.

The one about people being unable to afford coverage is fairly irrelevant, since we end up paying for all the uninsured no matter what. The point is that our entire system is rapidly becoming unaffordable. The part of Fox's idea of what 'wait times' are that you might miss if you aren't careful is that it is for ELECTIVE surgery.

This is classic Fox. It's not that their facts are wrong, it's that they selectively use them to paint a right wing picture... Skoorb, you should know better than this. It was fun to see the laughably ill-informed right wing circle jerk though. (HE LIED ABOUT THE STIMULUS HURGUGLUGUGUUGG)

 

[TruePaige]

Faux news fails again.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I like my socialized health care. I am insured by my employer who passes the cost on to those who buy our products and have to to survive but who have no health care themselves. Thanks chumps. You may be sick but I am OK. And fuck you too by the way. I'm where I am because I deserve it and you're a worthless piece of scum.

Just wait. As health costs continue to climb they will find an excuse to fire you when you get too old and feeble. Since you won't be able to afford insurance once you do get sick (it's not a matter of "if", it's only a matter of "when") you will have to sell off everything tp pay for those $300/pop pills..... unless of course you decide to self medicate with a 12 ga.

And whose responsibility is it to plan for that? Our grand kids?

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I like my socialized health care. I am insured by my employer who passes the cost on to those who buy our products and have to to survive but who have no health care themselves. Thanks chumps. You may be sick but I am OK. And fuck you too by the way. I'm where I am because I deserve it and you're a worthless piece of scum.

Just wait. As health costs continue to climb they will find an excuse to fire you when you get too old and feeble. Since you won't be able to afford insurance once you do get sick (it's not a matter of "if", it's only a matter of "when") you will have to sell off everything tp pay for those $300/pop pills..... unless of course you decide to self medicate with a 12 ga.

And whose responsibility is it to plan for that? Our grand kids?

"The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry."

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: spidey07
I particularly like this one. Insurance plans today cover SO MUCH MORE stuff than they used to. Really good article and it really hammers home the facts and dispels all the BS people keep believing and parroting. It just goes to show if people tell lies enough people think they are true.

"Myth: ?Insurers cover less today than they did in the past.?

No they?re covering more costs. According to the CBO, consumers paid for 33 % of their total, personal health care expenditures in 1975. But by 2000, consumers? personal share had fallen to 17%, and it declined to 15% in 2006."

Mine covers Viagra. I'd rather not pay for that, but I think I have some of the best insurance available, for only $80/mo.

Of course, I'd also rather pay for infrastructure than public health insurance.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Mani

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: Mani
I'm not sure if making 50k a year automatically means they can necessarily afford health care. Are those household incomes? If so, would a family of 4 with that kind of income would probably just be trying to put food on the table let alone getting health insurance, which depending on preexisting conditions can cost hundreds or even thousands a month.

I'm also not sure that the waiting times are necessarily caused by UHC. The US generally has shorter hospital stays than other countries and I doubt this would change significantly with UHC.

If they are the only game in town and people think they are going for FREE they go more often!

The statistic quoted for wait times was for surgeries. Don't think many people will be getting surgeries that much more often just because they're free.

Doctors will be getting a paycut so there will not be as many doctors.

There's already a shortage of docs, and tremendous number of people wanting to become one. Even if demand dropped by half, medical schools would still be bursting at the seams with qualified people wanting to become a doc. I honestly don't see salaries droppingmuch with UHC but even if they do, it won't affect demand for the profession one bit.

Government Employees holding shovels around one working nurse.

UHC doesn't call for government employees working in clinics. Even single payer uses the existing human resource infrastructure.[/quote]

I don't agree with you. 🙂

1 I was not talking about surgeries. And it is naive to think people will not go more often.

2 If you spend half your life in school to make not a ton of money for a uber skilled position that most all people could not do no matter how much schooling they take makes it less attractive with a smaller monitary reward. It takes a lot to run a good practice.

3 I think I was talking more of administration not the actual service. I should have said administrator which some are nurses as well. Government administrators have more red tape around them as they do incompetents that are not paid enough to care about you. Get ready for customer no service!!!

Lets face it folks do you or your government know what is best for your body? How will they make it cheaper? Rationing, Bureaucrats not doctors dictating a price schedule and health maintenance. Think HMOs with even worse service and overloaded with 10 times the workload.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Mine covers Viagra. I'd rather not pay for that, but I think I have some of the best insurance available, for only $80/mo.

Of course, I'd also rather pay for infrastructure than public health insurance.

waiting for the tool joke in...

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: jonks
So BA posted the CDC link in support of Fox's claims because....?

Because it shows exactly where the data is coming from and the reasoning behind the article to debunk the myths.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: EXman
Lets face it folks do you or your government know what is best for your body? How will they make it cheaper? Rationing, Bureaucrats not doctors dictating a price schedule and health maintenance. Think HMOs with even worse service and overloaded with 10 times the workload.

*shudder*

Every health professional and doctor I know thought HMOs were a bad idea when they started, looks like they were right. Bad idea = bad for the patient.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: EXman

I don't agree with you. 🙂

1 I was not talking about surgeries. And it is naive to think people will not go more often.

You just wanted to get me back for calling you naive in the other thread, didn't you. 😛 The only surgeries that more people would go in for are what would be considered elective, something most UHC plans limit. Secondly, the UHC plans being proposed are putting a tremendous emphasis on preventative care which should help to offset the most common surgeries done - most notably angioplasty, but to a lesser extent spinal surgeries and arthroscopy.

2 If you spend half your life in school to make not a ton of money for a uber skilled position that most all people could not do no matter how much schooling they take makes it less attractive with a smaller monitary reward. It takes a lot to run a good practice.

The majority of MDs are general physicians. Having several family members and very close friends who have gone through the process, it is not nearly as uber-skilled as you think. No matter what level of UHC, the profession will always be one of the most respected and will always have six-figure salaries. That is more than enough to still attract top talent.

3 I think I was talking more of administration not the actual service. I should have said administrator which some are nurses as well. Government administrators have more red tape around them as they do incompetents that are not paid enough to care about you. Get ready for customer no service!!!

Lets face it folks do you or your government know what is best for your body? How will they make it cheaper? Rationing, Bureaucrats not doctors dictating a price schedule and health maintenance. Think HMOs with even worse service and overloaded with 10 times the workload.

In Obama's proposal, anyone who wants a private plan can keep it, which will insulate you from the government bureaucrats if you so choose.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I like my socialized health care. I am insured by my employer who passes the cost on to those who buy our products and have to to survive but who have no health care themselves. Thanks chumps. You may be sick but I am OK. And fuck you too by the way. I'm where I am because I deserve it and you're a worthless piece of scum.

Just wait. As health costs continue to climb they will find an excuse to fire you when you get too old and feeble. Since you won't be able to afford insurance once you do get sick (it's not a matter of "if", it's only a matter of "when") you will have to sell off everything tp pay for those $300/pop pills..... unless of course you decide to self medicate with a 12 ga.

And whose responsibility is it to plan for that? Our grand kids?

Not my grand kids, you idiot, the grand kids of the poor. Just like now, socialized medicine>

I make stuff the poor have to buy and my employer extracts from them the cost of my health care. It's so simple. Socialized medicine for the deserving paid for by otherwise worthless people. Paying for my doctor makes their lives meaningful, at least a little.