Does Ted Kennedy Get Counsling?

[Pell Mell]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105525

[dutchboy]

Soylent Green

[DJofSD]

End of life counseling?

"Thank you for your years of paying taxes. Now, just go away and not be a drain on the economy, you don't deserve it."

[Tom]

The question is, should he be given pain killer and sent home?
Obama said that. We have to have rules. I heard him.

[mostpost]

If I were a conservative, I would be angry and embarrassed. Angry that the people who are supposed to be my guides and leaders are lying to me and embarrassed that I keep falling for it.
Let's take a look at the claims made in this article one by one, beginning with section 163
• Sec. 163, Pg. 58-59 beginning at line 5 - Government will have real-time access to
individual’s finances & a National ID health care card will be issued!No where does this say that the government will have access to an individuals financial records. This section refers to payments for a treatment, not to the payment of premiums. The purpose of this section is so your healthcare provider can determine your eligibilty in terms of your particular health care plan. This is the same whether you are covered by a private insurance plan or were you to be covered by the proposed public option.
I belong to a preferred provider plan. If I go to my regular doctor, who is a participant in the plan, I pay a certain amount. Were I to go to a doctor who is not a participant, I would pay a different, larger amount. This would also determine whether my plan would cover the treatment plan proposed by my doctor. THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME WHETHER I AM IN A PRIVATE PLAN OR A PUBLIC OPTION. THE DETERMINATION WOULD BE MADE BY WHOMEVER OPERATED THE PLAN I BELONG TO.
As far as a "so called" National ID Health Card; anyone who has private insurance and does not have a card fromn that insurance company, please raise your hand.
• Sec. 163, Pg. 59, Lines 21-24 - Government will have direct access to your bank accounts
for electronic funds transfer

Again, if you are in a private plan, the government is not involved. If you are in a public plan, the government has access to your account in order to complete electronic fund transfers. This is the same access YOU grant to your cable tv company, or your phone company. It is the same access the IRS has when it deposits your tax refund in your account
There are provisions in this very section defining what may be used and how it may be used. Page 62 beginning at line 8.

more later

[Tom]

I have a some land in Florida you might be interested in. :rolleyes::lol::lol::lol:

[DJofSD]

Angry that the people who are supposed to be my guides and leaders are lying to me and embarrassed that I keep falling for it.

Falling for what? I'm not falling for anything.

They are my elected officals. They are not my nanny. My guide? To what? Hell? The only reason they are there to begin with is because that is the form of governemnt we have. It's unfortunate that a minority of eligible voters which likely are not smarter than a 5th grader, have put into office these so called guides. Guides. That's what I hire when I want to go hunting or fishing in the back country and I need an expert that knows the lay of the land. Politicans are not guides. The closest they come to being guides is the whopper stories they tell.

Why don't be just do a Chinese menu: column A, B or C: the Canadian style of nationalized health care, the Swedish or the Cuban. Perhaps given the stark choices there might be further questions asked.

[boxcar]

If I were a conservative, I would be angry and embarrassed. Angry that the people who are supposed to be my guides and leaders are lying to me and embarrassed that I keep falling for it.
Let's take a look at the claims made in this article one by one, beginning with section 163
No where does this say that the government will have access to an individuals financial records. This section refers to payments for a treatment, not to the payment of premiums. The purpose of this section is so your healthcare provider can determine your eligibilty in terms of your particular health care plan. This is the same whether you are covered by a private insurance plan or were you to be covered by the proposed public option.
I belong to a preferred provider plan. If I go to my regular doctor, who is a participant in the plan, I pay a certain amount. Were I to go to a doctor who is not a participant, I would pay a different, larger amount. This would also determine whether my plan would cover the treatment plan proposed by my doctor. THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME WHETHER I AM IN A PRIVATE PLAN OR A PUBLIC OPTION. THE DETERMINATION WOULD BE MADE BY WHOMEVER OPERATED THE PLAN I BELONG TO.
As far as a "so called" National ID Health Card; anyone who has private insurance and does not have a card fromn that insurance company, please raise your hand.


Again, if you are in a private plan, the government is not involved. If you are in a public plan, the government has access to your account in order to complete electronic fund transfers. This is the same access YOU grant to your cable tv company, or your phone company. It is the same access the IRS has when it deposits your tax refund in your account
There are provisions in this very section defining what may be used and how it may be used. Page 62 beginning at line 8.

more later

So, you're equating a private insurance card with a government-issue I.D. where all your sensitive data is made known to the U.S. government? Furthermore, the only purpose behind an insurance card is that it proves that you have coverage. Your insurance company is NOT privy to all your most personal history. That insurance card isn't tied in to various government data bases, as would be the case with a national i.d. card.

With respect to EFTs -- would this be mandated? You see, in case you never caught on to this -- in the private sector with those cable companies and such, it is the consumer's decision whether to opt in or out -- or even once having opted in, to opt out a later date. I take it that you believe the state would afford us the some option opportunities, right? :rolleyes:

And I see that you're still in steep denial about the government take over of the health care industry; for you still refer to it as a public "option". How do you come up with this option foolishness? When are you going to come to grips with the fact that the state will force/coerce everyone into that "option" sooner or later, by hook or crook? Some option, eh? :bang: :bang:
I suggest you look up the term to understand what it means.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Falling for what? I'm not falling for anything.

They are my elected officals. They are not my nanny. My guide? To what? Hell?

You nailed it squarely! As the Good Book say, "the blind guides lead the blind and they both fall into the ditch"! The fact that he considers them his personal guides speaks volumes to his mindset. This is another one who worships at the altar of the Slave Master, continually entreating the state to provide for his every need because he's incapable of handling freedom, capitalism or personal responsibility. He wants the state to take control of his life for him because life is too complicated -- requires too much thought. Pretty pathetic, isn't it? As Larry King told his audience one, "someone has to do the thinking for them".

Boxcar

[dartman51]

There is a web site called HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICA NOW! They claim 47,750 people lost their health care THIS WEEK. Tell Congress we can't wait. I wonder where they got that figure? :confused:

[mostpost]

I have a some land in Florida you might be interested in. :rolleyes::lol::lol::lol:
You addressed none of my points. You disproved none of my conclusions.
But, then, I really didn't expect you to. :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Falling for what? I'm not falling for anything.

They are my elected officals. They are not my nanny. My guide? To what? Hell? The only reason they are there to begin with is because that is the form of governemnt we have. It's unfortunate that a minority of eligible voters which likely are not smarter than a 5th grader, have put into office these so called guides. Guides. That's what I hire when I want to go hunting or fishing in the back country and I need an expert that knows the lay of the land. Politicans are not guides. The closest they come to being guides is the whopper stories they tell.

Why don't be just do a Chinese menu: column A, B or C: the Canadian style of nationalized health care, the Swedish or the Cuban. Perhaps given the stark choices there might be further questions asked.

Perhaps I could have been more clear. By Guides and leaders, I mean not only elected officials, but also such entities as Rush, and Hannity, and o'reilley; Also Hot Air dot com and World Net Daily. World Net Daily was the link posted by PellMell to begin this thread.

Please (and I am not addressing this just to DJofSD), Please do not tell me that you think for yourself. I have seen hundreds of conservative articles referenced here and I have never seen a critical evaluation of any of those articles by our conservative posters. All I hear is "That's right by golly, yup, yup by gosh."

DJofSD, you also have not addressed any of my points; you also have disproven none of my conclusions.

[lsbets]

Most, if you want anyone who takes what you say seriously, perhaps you could demonstrate a little critical thinking ability of your own. All you do is excuse and dismiss every action by Obama, the Congress, and their most radical supporters. You expect people to respond to your unattributed statements about what is in the healthcare bill, but you have shown that you swallow every bunch of bull fed to you by our nation's worst enemies.

I am sorry my friend, it is you who lacks the ability to think for yourself.

Time and again you have made claims that you boldly proclaim to be the absolute truth. Then myself and others prove you wrong, you disappear from that thread and show up in another one. It has gotten a bit tiresome. Are you now employed as Obama's truth czar? :lol: :lol:

[mostpost]

You nailed it squarely! As the Good Book say, "the blind guides lead the blind and they both fall into the ditch"! The fact that he considers them his personal guides speaks volumes to his mindset. This is another one who worships at the altar of the Slave Master, continually entreating the state to provide for his every need because he's incapable of handling freedom, capitalism or personal responsibility. He wants the state to take control of his life for him because life is too complicated -- requires too much thought. Pretty pathetic, isn't it? As Larry King told his audience one, "someone has to do the thinking for them".

Boxcar
Seldom does one get anything as wrong as you have gotten this. When I saw this thread, I recalled a website which I learned of on Countdown. Please cut the crap dot com. They took the opinions expressed in articles similar to the one linked here and debunked them one by one. But I did not take their word for it. I looked at the bill and determined for myself if they were right or wrong, truthful or lieing, obfuscating or clarifying. Then I used my own thoughts and my own words to try to set you straight. Like that's gonna happen. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[lsbets]

I went to your site most, that you got from countdown. Unsurprisingly the people who right on that site are not very bright, not very honest, and pretty much wrong on most of the conclusions they come to.

Shocking that you like them.

[mostpost]

Most, if you want anyone who takes what you say seriously, perhaps you could demonstrate a little critical thinking ability of your own. All you do is excuse and dismiss every action by Obama, the Congress, and their most radical supporters. You expect people to respond to your unattributed statements about what is in the healthcare bill, but you have shown that you swallow every bunch of bull fed to you by our nation's worst enemies.

I am sorry my friend, it is you who lacks the ability to think for yourself.

Time and again you have made claims that you boldly proclaim to be the absolute truth. Then myself and others prove you wrong, you disappear from that thread and show up in another one. It has gotten a bit tiresome. Are you now employed as Obama's truth czar? :lol: :lol:
I just went back to look at recent threads in which I participated. I was trying to find where you proved me wrong. Hasn't happened. OK I'll concede Megan Kelly. If you look at my opinions you will find a lot of links a lot of references to prove my point. When I can I try to use original sources. Or I try to find more than one source. I don't post everyone. I try to post the one that best fits the situation.

I've looked at your posts and I don't see any proofs, just opinions.
As far as my disappearing from a thread; I try to answer legitimate points, but sometimes it is just futile. You aren't going to agree no matter what I say.

[NJ Stinks]

Most, if you want anyone who takes what you say seriously, perhaps you could demonstrate a little critical thinking ability of your own.

You've got it backwards IMO, Isbets. Mostpost is the only one thinking on his own as far as I can see.

Plain and simple - worldnetdaily, used as a source of anything besides amusement & partisan politics, boggles the mind. Or would you accept the left using the Daily Kos as a source here?

[mostpost]

[QUOTE=boxcar]So, you're equating a private insurance card with a government-issue I.D. where all your sensitive data is made known to the U.S. government? Furthermore, the only purpose behind an insurance card is that it proves that you have coverage. Your insurance company is NOT privy to all your most personal history. That insurance card isn't tied in to various government data bases, as would be the case with a national i.d. card.

With respect to EFTs -- would this be mandated? You see, in case you never caught on to this -- in the private sector with those cable companies and such, it is the consumer's decision whether to opt in or out -- or even once having opted in, to opt out a later date. I take it that you believe the state would afford us the some option opportunities, right? :rolleyes:

Section 163 on page 58 beginning on line 11 says "MAY include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card." may is not shall; may is not must. So we don't know if such a card will be included at some future time.

But, I don't understand your objection to such a card. Except for the typical rightie paranoia any time government is mentioned. This would be an insurance beneficiary identification card. It would be presented to your health provider so that he/she could determine what insurance coverage you have. If you have private insurance now, you have such a card. A national card would be no different. Why you think it would contain your secret financial information or your medical information is beyond me.

IF a national card is adopted, the information on that card would only be known to you, your health care provider and your insurance company.
IF a public option is adoped and if you are enrolled in such a plan, then the administrators of that public Plan would have access to such information as they would require to adjudicate your claim.
Beginning on page 62 line 8, the bill enumerates the limitations on the use of the data collected and the protection of that data. Both the data and the people who have access are extremely limited.

I found this information by actually reading section 163.
You can find it by going to Thomas.gov. Use the search function to go to
HR3200 then to text of legislation. select the PDF file. The pages are as listed here.

[mostpost]

The American Medical Association has weighed in on the proposed Health Care Legislation package.


The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.

The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.

Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.

Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, 'Oh, Grow up!'

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.

Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.

The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.

The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

The Chiropractors said it was not what it was cracked up to be.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.

[dartman51]

The American Medical Association has weighed in on the proposed Health Care Legislation package.


The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.

The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.

Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.

Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, 'Oh, Grow up!'

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it.

Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing.

The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter."

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.

The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

The Chiropractors said it was not what it was cracked up to be.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.

:lol: :lol: :lol: That's great Most, that pretty much says it all.

[lsbets]

Most, I've even offered to wire you $1,000 in the past if you could back up one of your statements, and you couldn't do it. You were full of shit, called out, and found wanting. Your rhetoric is as empty as Obama's. Of course its not surprising that Joe Biden's number one fan is also your number one fan. Guess that's why you're the Truth Czar. :lol: :lol:

[Snag]

Most, haven't you forgotten the title/reason for this thread?

You seem to like everything you have read so far. Did you get to the part about the "End of Life Counsling"? What's your spin on that?

[mostpost]

Most, haven't you forgotten the title/reason for this thread?

You seem to like everything you have read so far. Did you get to the part about the "End of Life Counsling"? What's your spin on that?
I will address that, but today I have a major family party/picnic to attend. It's not spin, it's facts. ;)

[Tom]

You addressed none of my points. You disproved none of my conclusions.
But, then, I really didn't expect you to. :rolleyes:

In all seriousness, I have to give you credit where it is due.
Every post you make is more insightful and thought provoking than the next one.

I mean that sincerely!

[mostpost]

In all seriousness, I have to give you credit where it is due.
Every post you make is more insightful and thought provoking than the next one.

I mean that sincerely!
Don't think I don't know what you said. :lol:

[rastajenk]

There are some slippery slopes around here, fer sher. :)

[toetoe]

Mostie,

After slogging through your cant (yes, I now believe in the word cant), my bowels and I have decided to just move on (dot org).

Now, scat.

[boxcar]

Most, haven't you forgotten the title/reason for this thread?

You seem to like everything you have read so far. Did you get to the part about the "End of Life Counsling"? What's your spin on that?

Yeah, one Dem governor out west somewhere had an interesting euphemism for that -- that we have to learn to "step aside" when its our time. Of course,the state, assuming the role of God, gets to decide when that time is.

Boxcar

[Snag]

Yeah, one Dem governor out west somewhere had an interesting euphemism for that -- that we have to learn to "step aside" when its our time. Of course,the state, assuming the role of God, gets to decide when that time is.
Boxcar

You are very correct Box. I find it very interesting when libs can always tell others how to live their lives. I hate to think the rules and script written for the counsling purposed. You know that no one will admit to writing the rules for this.

[Tom]

You are very correct Box. I find it very interesting when libs can always tell others how to live their lives. I hate to think the rules and script written for the counsling purposed. You know that no one will admit to writing the rules for this.

One question, "Are you a democrat or a republican?"

[Snag]

One question, "Are you a democrat or a republican?"

Tom, Tom, Tom, after all this time, you have to ask? I've voted both into office. I've been proud of some and won't admit to the others. All elections are local except one. I'm proud of the fact that I did not vote, support, or back BO. Someone who has never led others, cannot lead me.

Since you put your question in quotes, I wonder who you are quoting.

[mostpost]

Many of those on the right- those who have no regard for truth-have claimed that the proposed HR3200 Health Care Bill will mandate Euthanasia. Specifically, they claim if you are elderly, someone FROM THE GOVERNMENT will come to your home and advise you on ways to end your life.

Section 1233 of the bill is concerned with "Advance Care Planning Consultation." This is a consultation which takes place between a practitioner and a patient. A practitioner is defined (page 428 lines 6 thru 11) as:
A...a Physician
B ...a nurse pratitioner or a physicians assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for LIFE SUSTANING treatments. (Emphasis mine).

Section 1233 does contain a list of items which a practitioner "shall" include in an "Advance Care Planning Consultation" Pages 425 line 3 thru page 428
line 5.) The purpose of this consultation is not so the patient can go off and off himself. It is so that a patient understands his options for further care. And so that he understands them while he is fully cognizant of his choices and options. So, if you have an incurable cancer, instead of undergoing painful operations and debillitating chemo therapies, you can choose a course of treatment which will allow you to live in comparative comfort until the inevitable end. It's a choice which the patient makes in consultation with his doctor. The government has nothing to do with it!!! And it is not suicide or euthanasia, because death occurs as a result of the natural progression of the disease. Nowhere in this bill does it say "consultation between a practitioner, a patient and a government bureaucrat.

The claim has been made that this consultation is mandatory every five years. The five years refers to how frequently Medicare will cover the costs of such a consultation. Previously any such conversation between a patient and a doctor was not covered. It is about payment. It is not about mandating.

Payment is why Section 1233 contains a list of subjects to be covered during these consults. So that the patient gets what Medicare is paying for. .

[DJofSD]

Wow, I can now rest asured that the government is going to say what they mean and mean what they say. You trust this out of control monster way too much.

Just look at what happens in England.

[mostpost]

Wow, I can now rest asured that the government is going to say what they mean and mean what they say. You trust this out of control monster way too much.

Just look at what happens in England.
It's not what the government says, it is what is in the Bill. Nothing that has been claimed by the wacko right has any resemble to reality. Read section 1233.

You know no more about what happens in England than you do about what happens here.

[DJofSD]

You're a bigger fool than I thought.

[mostpost]

Under Section 1401, a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research would be set up, creating a bureaucracy through which federal employees could determine whether any treatment is "comparatively effective" for any individual based on the cost, likely success and probably the years left in life.

This is a total misrepresentation of what this section of the bill is about. You could see that if you would read Section 1401. Not that any of you ever will. :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: . You are too happy in your ignorance.

The function of the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research will be to analyze treatment regimens over the total involved population. This information would then be available to any particular physician to use in the treatment of his/her patients. Nowhere in section 1401 is the age of the patient mentioned, nowhere is the cost of the treatment mentioned.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say cost is mentioned. Mentioned in terms of which treatment would be more cost effective FOR THE PATIENT.

This has nothing to do with a government bureaucrat looking at an individual and saying he/she is too old, to sick or to poor to receive treatment. It is a clearinghouse (of sorts) of information on the comparative effectiveness of different treatments for various diseases and health related issues. It is then up to the doctor and the patient to determine which course of treatment to follow.

Someone is sure to say. "Well, how can they obtain information on which treatments work best unless they look at out health records?" I say, "Show me where in this bill 'Doctor- Patient Confidentiality' has been repealed."

You can glean statistics without disclosing identities. A researcher can query a physician has to a course of treatment without learning the names or other personal information of the individuals treated.

Finally, "Public Access". This DOES NOT mean your personal health records will be open to the government or to the guy who walks in off the street. It means that the information on the effectiveness of various treatment will be available to physicians using that information to treat their patients

[mostpost]

You're a bigger fool than I thought.
Thank you for your thoughful and well reasoned reponse. :rolleyes:

[Snag]

Nowhere in this bill does it say "consultation between a practitioner, a patient and a government bureaucrat.



Most, if the bill means what you say, why does this have to be put into a bill written by Congress? Do you really think that a government bureaucrat will NOT have any input into this counsling? Come on.

This counsling was put in as a result of a government bureaucrat wanting control over end of life issues.

[boxcar]

Under Section 1401, a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research would be set up, creating a bureaucracy through which federal employees could determine whether any treatment is "comparatively effective" for any individual based on the cost, likely success and probably the years left in life.

This is a total misrepresentation of what this section of the bill is about. You could see that if you would read Section 1401. Not that any of you ever will. :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: . You are too happy in your ignorance.

The function of the Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research will be to analyze treatment regimens over the total involved population. This information would then be available to any particular physician to use in the treatment of his/her patients. Nowhere in section 1401 is the age of the patient mentioned, nowhere is the cost of the treatment mentioned.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say cost is mentioned. Mentioned in terms of which treatment would be more cost effective FOR THE PATIENT.

This has nothing to do with a government bureaucrat looking at an individual and saying he/she is too old, to sick or to poor to receive treatment. It is a clearinghouse (of sorts) of information on the comparative effectiveness of different treatments for various diseases and health related issues. It is then up to the doctor and the patient to determine which course of treatment to follow.

Someone is sure to say. "Well, how can they obtain information on which treatments work best unless they look at out health records?" I say, "Show me where in this bill 'Doctor- Patient Confidentiality' has been repealed."

You can glean statistics without disclosing identities. A researcher can query a physician has to a course of treatment without learning the names or other personal information of the individuals treated.

Finally, "Public Access". This DOES NOT mean your personal health records will be open to the government or to the guy who walks in off the street. It means that the information on the effectiveness of various treatment will be available to physicians using that information to treat their patients

Then why use the term "public"? :bang: :bang: :bang:

Also, it's illogical to argue from silence. Just because a bill doesn't specifically repeal or amend doctor-patient confidentiality, doesn't mean one or more other provisions wouldn't be able to override some former rule or law as a necessary action to implement the new law. Nice try, though.

Boxcar

[dutchboy]

Many of those on the right- those who have no regard for truth-have claimed that the proposed HR3200 Health Care Bill will mandate Euthanasia. Specifically, they claim if you are elderly, someone FROM THE GOVERNMENT will come to your home and advise you on ways to end your life.

Section 1233 of the bill is concerned with "Advance Care Planning Consultation." This is a consultation which takes place between a practitioner and a patient. A practitioner is defined (page 428 lines 6 thru 11) as:
A...a Physician
B ...a nurse pratitioner or a physicians assistant who has the authority under State law to sign orders for LIFE SUSTANING treatments. (Emphasis mine).

Section 1233 does contain a list of items which a practitioner "shall" include in an "Advance Care Planning Consultation" Pages 425 line 3 thru page 428
line 5.) The purpose of this consultation is not so the patient can go off and off himself. It is so that a patient understands his options for further care. And so that he understands them while he is fully cognizant of his choices and options. So, if you have an incurable cancer, instead of undergoing painful operations and debillitating chemo therapies, you can choose a course of treatment which will allow you to live in comparative comfort until the inevitable end. It's a choice which the patient makes in consultation with his doctor. The government has nothing to do with it!!! And it is not suicide or euthanasia, because death occurs as a result of the natural progression of the disease. Nowhere in this bill does it say "consultation between a practitioner, a patient and a government bureaucrat.

The claim has been made that this consultation is mandatory every five years. The five years refers to how frequently Medicare will cover the costs of such a consultation. Previously any such conversation between a patient and a doctor was not covered. It is about payment. It is not about mandating.

Payment is why Section 1233 contains a list of subjects to be covered during these consults. So that the patient gets what Medicare is paying for. .

Have you watched the movie Soylent Green?

[lsbets]

I read section 1401. Something tells me you didn't, or if you did, you didn't understand it. It is even scarier than what has been reported. A government bureaucracy that will dictate what courses of treatment to follow. Of course you are right most, it doesn't say years of life left, it says they will look at how different factors affect treatment, including age. Oh yes, but the government is our friend and is always looking out for our best interests. Of course. :faint:

[Tom]

Tom, Tom, Tom, after all this time, you have to ask? I've voted both into office. I've been proud of some and won't admit to the others. All elections are local except one. I'm proud of the fact that I did not vote, support, or back BO. Someone who has never led others, cannot lead me.

Since you put your question in quotes, I wonder who you are quoting.

No, no, not YOU.....it was the script you mentioned - "I hate to think the rules and script written for the counsling purposed." Your treatment depends on your political affiliation.

You are obviously one of us! ;)

[Tom]

Have you watched the movie Soylent Green?



psssst.....it's people!!!!

[Snag]

No, no, not YOU.....it was the script you mentioned - "I hate to think the rules and script written for the counsling purposed." Your treatment depends on your political affiliation.

You are obviously one of us! ;)

Ok, you scared me there.

[mostpost]

Most, if the bill means what you say, why does this have to be put into a bill written by Congress? Do you really think that a government bureaucrat will NOT have any input into this counsling? Come on.

This counsling was put in as a result of a government bureaucrat wanting control over end of life issues.

Riiightt!!!!
Government bureaucrats just sit around saying, "boy do I want control over end of life issues." Good one Snag :lol: :lol: :lol:

[mostpost]

Then why use the term "public"? :bang: :bang: :bang:

Also, it's illogical to argue from silence. Just because a bill doesn't specifically repeal or amend doctor-patient confidentiality, doesn't mean one or more other provisions wouldn't be able to override some former rule or law as a necessary action to implement the new law. Nice try, though.

Boxcar
According to your logic any law can be used to implement any policy, just by not mentioning it. :confused: :confused: :confused: .

Besides, we have courts. Checks and balances. Do I need to enumerate the times the government has tried to do somnething and the courts said NO/.

[mostpost]

Have you watched the movie Soylent Green?
Are you seriously suggesting that the government is encouraging suicide so they can feed us to each other. WOW :eek: :eek:

[Tom]

Are you seriously suggesting that you would actually trust/believe anything the government told you???? :lol:

[Snag]

Riiightt!!!!
Government bureaucrats just sit around saying, "boy do I want control over end of life issues." Good one Snag :lol: :lol: :lol:

That's a good dodge Most but it does not answer the question. Do you really think that the government will not have input into the counsling sessions?

[mostpost]

I read section 1401. Something tells me you didn't, or if you did, you didn't understand it. It is even scarier than what has been reported. A government bureaucracy that will dictate what courses of treatment to follow. Of course you are right most, it doesn't say years of life left, it says they will look at how different factors affect treatment, including age. Oh yes, but the government is our friend and is always looking out for our best interests. Of course. :faint:

OK let's see if we can find what you say is there.

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall establish within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the `Center') to conduct, support, and synthesize research (including research conducted or supported under section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinic
This says that the "Center" will conduct research into how best to treat an illness. AN ILLNESS, NOT A PATIENT. What works in the most cases.

`(2) DUTIES- The Center shall--

`(A) conduct, support, and synthesize research relevant to the comparative effectiveness of the full spectrum of health care items, services and systems, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, medical and surgical procedures, and other medical interventions;

`(B) conduct and support systematic reviews of clinical research, including original research conducted subsequent to the date of the enactment of this section;

`(C) continuously develop rigorous scientific methodologies for conducting comparative effectiveness studies, and use such methodologies appropriately;

`(D) submit to the Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission, the Secretary, and Congress appropriate relevant reports described in subsection (d)(2); and

`(E) encourage, as appropriate, the development and use of clinical registries and the development of clinical effectiveness research data networks from electronic health records, post marketing drug and medical device surveillance efforts, and other forms of electronic health data.


Once again, this does not talk about individual patients. "Comparative efectiveness refers clearly and obviously to the effectiveness of different treatments against an illness. It does not refer to how a treatment will effect an individual. An example; Joe Smith goes to his doctor and says, "Doc, I've got a rash on my arm. The doctor determines the type of rash. He know that there are several prescription salves which are effective against that particular type of rash. The doctor can access the information gatherd by the "Center" and learn which of the possibilities is the most effective. We'll call it brand X. He can then prescribe Brand X for Joe Smith. Can, but doesn't have to. As Joe Smith's doctor. he may (should) be aware if Joe Smith is alergic to any ingredient in Brand X. In that case he can choose an alternate
course of treatment.

The information obtained by the "Center" will be disseminated as desribed here.
`(e) Dissemination and Incorporation of Comparative Effectiveness Information-

`(1) DISSEMINATION- The Center shall provide for the dissemination of appropriate findings produced by research supported, conducted, or synthesized under this section to health care providers, patients, vendors of health information technology focused on clinical decision support, appropriate professional associations, and Federal and private health plans, and other relevant stakeholders. In disseminating such findings the Center shall--

`(A) convey findings of research so that they are comprehensible and useful to patients and providers in making health care decisions;

`(B) discuss findings and other considerations specific to certain sub-populations, risk factors, and comorbidities as appropriate;

`(C) include considerations such as limitations of research and what further research may be needed, as appropriate;

`(D) not include any data that the dissemination of which would violate the privacy of research participants or violate any confidentiality agreements made with respect to the use of data under this section; and

`(E) assist the users of health information technology focused on clinical decision support to promote the timely incorporation of such findings into clinical practices and promote the ease of use of such incorporation

Pay particular attention to (D), I will repeat it here.

`(D) not include any data that the dissemination of which would violate the privacy of research participants or violate any confidentiality agreements made with respect to the use of data under this section; and

So, by reading this section and applying common sense interpretation we find.
1. The purpose of Section 1401 is NOT TO DICTATE TREATMENT PLANS BUT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION.
2. The privacy of those participating in the research is protected.

[boxcar]

OK let's see if we can find what you say is there.


This says that the "Center" will conduct research into how best to treat an illness. AN ILLNESS, NOT A PATIENT. What works in the most cases.

`(

Once again, this does not talk about individual patients. "Comparative efectiveness refers clearly and obviously to the effectiveness of different treatments against an illness. It does not refer to how a treatment will effect an individual. An example; Joe Smith goes to his doctor and says, "Doc, I've got a rash on my arm. The doctor determines the type of rash. He know that there are several prescription salves which are effective against that particular type of rash. The doctor can access the information gatherd by the "Center" and learn which of the possibilities is the most effective. We'll call it brand X. He can then prescribe Brand X for Joe Smith. Can, but doesn't have to. As Joe Smith's doctor. he may (should) be aware if Joe Smith is alergic to any ingredient in Brand X. In that case he can choose an alternate
course of treatment.



Pay particular attention to (D), I will repeat it here.


So, by reading this section and applying common sense interpretation we find.
1. The purpose of Section 1401 is NOT TO DICTATE TREATMENT PLANS BUT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION.
2. The privacy of those participating in the research is protected.


Why would a competent doctor need the state to provide him with treatment information? He already has at his disposal other sources if he's not certain which treatment to prescribe?

Further, if the doctor (let's say a GP) doesn't know or isn't sure what or how to prescribe, this is what specialists are for. He would refer his patient to a specialist who would know.

Bottom line: No one needs the freakin' government to provide medical information to a professional health care provider.

Boxcar

[dutchboy]

Are you seriously suggesting that the government is encouraging suicide so they can feed us to each other. WOW :eek: :eek:

Always thought the way Edward G Robinson in the movie checked out would beat the heck out of spending the last years in a nursing home alone, broke, and in misery.

[Tom]

If you look at the PDF copy I posted last week, around pg 40-44? it clearly states that you will have to have a mandatory meeting at age 50, I believe it was.

[boxcar]

If you look at the PDF copy I posted last week, around pg 40-44? it clearly states that you will have to have a mandatory meeting at age 50, I believe it was.

That meeting is to advise you of your right to have a kind, gentle, compassionate, loving, caring, empathetic career government bureaucrat at your side when the state decides for you that it's time for you to "step aside", because that is THE STATE SOLUTION for cutting costs.. (Wow! I just got the warm fuzzy goose bumps thinkin' about this! What a wonderful government we have!)

Oh, praise the state! Hallelujah! Give all thanksgiving and glory to the state!

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Why would a competent doctor need the state to provide him with treatment information? He already has at his disposal other sources if he's not certain which treatment to prescribe?

Further, if the doctor (let's say a GP) doesn't know or isn't sure what or how to prescribe, this is what specialists are for. He would refer his patient to a specialist who would know.

Bottom line: No one needs the freakin' government to provide medical information to a professional health care provider.

Boxcar
I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on a popular horse racing forum. But I'm sure that even the most dedicated Doctor has difficulty keeping up with all the information that is out there. Especially since it can be scattered among so many different periodical and papers. And, there is no authoritative comparison of the effectiveness of various treatments.

ITS A FREAKIN' LIBRARY. Would I see you picketing your local library as a government intrusion into reading? Oh wait! I forgot who I was talking to.

[mostpost]

If you look at the PDF copy I posted last week, around pg 40-44? it clearly states that you will have to have a mandatory meeting at age 50, I believe it was.
No, it doesn't. The word Mandatory is not found ANYWHERE in HR3200 (The bill you posted)You do know that you can search a PDF document? There is a pair of binoculars on the toolbar. Click on them and a box opens. Type the word you wish to find in the document you are looking at. I typed in "mandatory" for this document. Page 1 to page 1018. Zero; Nothing, Zilch.
No Hits.

[boxcar]

I'm not a doctor and I don't play one on a popular horse racing forum. But I'm sure that even the most dedicated Doctor has difficulty keeping up with all the information that is out there. Especially since it can be scattered among so many different periodical and papers. And, there is no authoritative comparison of the effectiveness of various treatments.

ITS A FREAKIN' LIBRARY. Would I see you picketing your local library as a government intrusion into reading? Oh wait! I forgot who I was talking to.

Heck no, I'd never picket a library -- most especially a medical one that my doctor may need to make use of on my behalf. :bang: :bang:

Boxcar
P.S. For your info: Doctors, who have no shortage of good informational resources, have been doing fine for a very long time without government intrusion into their business.

PPS. Lay off the lame attempts at analogies. You libs aren't very good at them. A library indeed.... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[boxcar]

No, it doesn't. The word Mandatory is not found ANYWHERE in HR3200 (The bill you posted)You do know that you can search a PDF document? There is a pair of binoculars on the toolbar. Click on them and a box opens. Type the word you wish to find in the document you are looking at. I typed in "mandatory" for this document. Page 1 to page 1018. Zero; Nothing, Zilch.
No Hits.

The word doesn't need to appear in the document for something to be mandatory. Get a clue already, will ya?

Boxcar

[mostpost]

The word doesn't need to appear in the document for something to be mandatory. Get a clue already, will ya?

Boxcar
The fact is that nothing in this bill mandates, orders, decrees, directs, commands, requires, or insists that a person have a consultation with his doctor and it definitely does not order, decree, direct, command, require or insist that he have one with a government bureaucrat.

What it does do is to enumerate topics that are to be covered in such a consultation in order for that consultation to be covered by Medicare.

Get a clue already, will ya?

Colonel Mustard in the Library with a candlestick holder? :confused:

[boxcar]

The fact is that nothing in this bill mandates, orders, decrees, directs, commands, requires, or insists that a person have a consultation with his doctor and it definitely does not order, decree, direct, command, require or insist that he have one with a government bureaucrat.

What it does do is to enumerate topics that are to be covered in such a consultation in order for that consultation to be covered by Medicare.

So, then by your own admission, in order for any consultation be covered by Medicare, it must mandate, order, decree, direct, command, require or insist that my doctor consult with some bungling, muddle-headed government bureaucrat, right? So, it looks like you landed right back on square one! Why would I want my private, sensitive medical history in the public domain? :bang: :bang:

Colonel Mustard in the Library with a candlestick holder? :confused:

The reason you're so confused is that there isn't enough candlepower in the universe to light the way of those so willingly blind. But hold on to that candlestick holder. It might come in handy some day to ward off merciless muggers who prey on the disadvantaged and mentally challenged. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
P.S. Since you're so high on this bill, you are writing to the prez and your congress critters to demand that they all drop their current, private plans and participate in this public one, right? :rolleyes:

[mostpost]

Is he really this dense?

[PaceAdvantage]

Can you guys just stop with the freakin name calling.

For ****S sake...get a grip!

[lsbets]

Psst, most - keep reading the pages that immediately follow the snippets you posted. That will give you something key in understanding anything you read - context. The monster scope of this bill is frightening as hell.

[DJofSD]

Psst, most - keep reading the pages that immediately follow the snippets you posted. That will give you something key in understanding anything you read - context. The monster scope of this bill is frightening as hell.
Yes, and it will make Social Security pale in comparison.

[Tom]

I hate to keep saying it, but read Saul Alinsky...the idea is to collapse the current government and then, guess who has an second government all set up and ready to take over? Hint....can you spell Czar?

It is scripted.......it is coming.

Unelected, un-vetted, illegal people usurping the constitutional government, which Obama is on records as wanting to circumvent.

Like they said in Berlin in 1933.......oh be serious, that will never happen here.

[boxcar]

According to your logic any law can be used to implement any policy, just by not mentioning it. :confused: :confused: :confused: .

Besides, we have courts. Checks and balances. Do I need to enumerate the times the government has tried to do somnething and the courts said NO/.

No, I didn't say that. Don't put words in my mouth. What I said was that one set of rules or laws can supersede another apart from any mention of the older laws or rules.

Boxcar

[boxcar]

Is he really this dense?

Well, you see, I'm waiting for you to answer the question I have posed many times in this little discussion. You see, if you just answer my question and enlighten me with your wisdom and knowledge, all that alleged denseness would dissipate.

Here's the question again: If this health care bill is so good for the masses, why will all government folks and union workers be exempt from participating in it?

And the second question is closely related: Why would the U.S. government sanction class discrimination?

Now, don't disappoint me because you like to think of yourself as your own man -- as this great independent-minded thinker. NJ, too, thinks you're a great thinker; therefore, I really expect great answers. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Psst, most - keep reading the pages that immediately follow the snippets you posted. That will give you something key in understanding anything you read - context. The monster scope of this bill is frightening as hell.
I have read them. I read them again. I read to page 524 (PDF file), where the section on Nursing homes starts.

The Section we are discussing, section 1401 is titled "Quality....Comparative Effectiveness Research. You, along with Tom, Boxcar and others, feel this means there will be a government bureaucrat sitting next to your doctor telling him which treatments to use. You feel that the bureaucrat will base his decisions on cost rather than what is best for you, the patient. I am simplifying here, but I think that is the basis of your argument. You believe "Comparative Effectiveness Research" means comparing the cost of the treatment to an INDIVIDUAL, and deciding whether that INDIVIDUAL is worth treating. You think this bill gives that power to the government.

MY READING of the section is quite different. It establishes an independent agency which will evaluate RESEARCH, and determine which avenues of treatment are most effective. This will be done by people who are working in the various fields, not by a bureaucrat. LET ME SAY AGAIN...effective in general, not in specific cases....effective financially....but more important effective medically.

I have diligently searched to find where this section of this bill says what you say it says. I can't find it. I don't think It's there. So unless you can cite me me chapter and verse to prove your point,this conversation is over. I think you got no game.

[boxcar]

I have read them. I read them again. I read to page 524 (PDF file), where the section on Nursing homes starts.

The Section we are discussing, section 1401 is titled "Quality....Comparative Effectiveness Research. You, along with Tom, Boxcar and others, feel this means there will be a government bureaucrat sitting next to your doctor telling him which treatments to use. You feel that the bureaucrat will base his decisions on cost rather than what is best for you, the patient. I am simplifying here, but I think that is the basis of your argument. You believe "Comparative Effectiveness Research" means comparing the cost of the treatment to an INDIVIDUAL, and deciding whether that INDIVIDUAL is worth treating. You think this bill gives that power to the government.

MY READING of the section is quite different. It establishes an independent agency which will evaluate RESEARCH, and determine which avenues of treatment are most effective. This will be done by people who are working in the various fields, not by a bureaucrat. LET ME SAY AGAIN...effective in general, not in specific cases....effective financially....but more important effective medically.

I have diligently searched to find where this section of this bill says what you say it says. I can't find it. I don't think It's there. So unless you can cite me me chapter and verse to prove your point,this conversation is over. I think you got no game.

And since you brought up the topic of "no game", you're a fraud, too. Answer my two questions Mr. Independent Critical Thinker. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[lsbets]

So because you can't understand what you read, I "got no game". You changed your tune from absolute to "I think". Did anyone say some bureaucrat would sit next to your doctor? Nope. But the section clearly says that the bureaucrats will determine the most effective treatments and push that down to the doctors. Now you try to say a general population recommendation doesn't apply to any individual. Are you on crack? Seriously - the bill clearly says the government will determine what treatments are the most effective and will instruct practitioners to use those treatments. It centralizes the power in our health care system with the bureaucracy in Washington DC. I understand you are all in favor of centralizing more power with the federal government. We established previously that you are weak willed and dependent, and therefore feel everyone else must be as weak as you and cannot survive without the government. The irony is, while you think that choosing the government to help you live is a good idea, what you are choosing is death.

[Snag]

And since you brought up the topic of "no game", you're a fraud, too. Answer my two questions Mr. Independent Critical Thinker. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

Box, he won't answer my question either. No answer is really an answer in my book. At least we know where he stands now.

[DJofSD]

It's just amazing the human race exists at all. How could we have survived without the government and its oversight of medical treatments?

Of coarse the liberals will say this is progress. It might be progress but it certainly is not an improvement. So, if this man-caused disaster becomes law, we will have taken yet one more step away from any semblance of control. It use to be treatment and medical care was a one-on-one experience. Enter the medical insurance entities which now have inserted themselves between you and your doctor. Next, we'll have the government instead of insurance companies. And if you thought fighting the insurance companies was bad, just wait: you'll be fighting an entity that can not be sued.

So, for all those that think the government is the best solution to whatever you think is the problem, do me a favor: give up your medical insurance and your regular care provider then seek out medical services like all of the rest of the indigents. Then report back how wonderful your experiences were. Go ahead, you go first, lead by example.

[mostpost]

Here's the question again: If this health care bill is so good for the masses, why will all government folks and union workers be exempt from participating in it?

First, let's divide this up and look at "government folks". I found an article by Betsy McGaughey which stated that Government employees would be exempt.
She cited Section 3116. Betsy McGaughey is about as reliable as a screen door on a submarine. There is no section 3116 in HR3200. But, perhaps she got the number wrong or maybe she was referring to an earlier version. So I used the Find feature for PDF files. I entered "Government Employees" I got three or four hits, all of them referring to people who might be hired to work in agencies created by the bill were it to pass. Then I entered "Congressman" the word "Congressman" appears zero times in this bill. Then I entered "Senator" No Hits. The acronym FEHB produced no results, and neither did the long form Federal Employees Health Benefits.

Now it seems to me that in order to exempt those people from this bill they would need to mention one and probably all of those terms. So if such an exemption did exist, I am unable to find it now. Frankly, I can see no reason for it. The bill clearly states you can keep your present coverage. I am in FEHB myself. There is no reason to change.

The Union part: I do not see anything in HR3200 which would exempt union workers from participation. There are proposals in the Senate to exempt them from a tax on health benefits. It is unclear if they will be a part of the final package. I THINK IT WOULD BE A BAD IDEA. If union members (of which I am one) receive the benefits of Health Care Reform, then we should should be willing to bear the costs.
And the second question is closely related: Why would the U.S. government sanction class discrimination
I can't answer your second question. Even if your thesis were true, you are asking me to discern someone else's motives.

[mostpost]

That's a good dodge Most but it does not answer the question. Do you really think that the government will not have input into the counsling sessions?
How? Is there going to be a government worker in every Doctor's office. Do you really think either the doctor or the patient will stand for that? And what would be the purpose? You seem to think that government employees sit around and say, "Who can I kill today?....who's life can I interfere in?" The only people who have ever tried to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship are Republicans on abortion. For once in your life think critically, take off your ideological blinders and see things as they are. Oh...never mind... it's hopeless. :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

[boxcar]

First, let's divide this up and look at "government folks". I found an article by Betsy McGaughey which stated that Government employees would be exempt.
She cited Section 3116. Betsy McGaughey is about as reliable as a screen door on a submarine. There is no section 3116 in HR3200. But, perhaps she got the number wrong or maybe she was referring to an earlier version. So I used the Find feature for PDF files. I entered "Government Employees" I got three or four hits, all of them referring to people who might be hired to work in agencies created by the bill were it to pass. Then I entered "Congressman" the word "Congressman" appears zero times in this bill. Then I entered "Senator" No Hits. The acronym FEHB produced no results, and neither did the long form Federal Employees Health Benefits.

Now it seems to me that in order to exempt those people from this bill they would need to mention one and probably all of those terms. So if such an exemption did exist, I am unable to find it now. Frankly, I can see no reason for it. The bill clearly states you can keep your present coverage. I am in FEHB myself. There is no reason to change.

The Union part: I do not see anything in HR3200 which would exempt union workers from participation. There are proposals in the Senate to exempt them from a tax on health benefits. It is unclear if they will be a part of the final package. I THINK IT WOULD BE A BAD IDEA. If union members (of which I am one) receive the benefits of Health Care Reform, then we should should be willing to bear the costs.

I can't answer your second question. Even if your thesis were true, you are asking me to discern someone else's motives.

If politicians and federal employees will not be required to participate in any public "option", then why would Waxman shoot down a Repub's proposed amendment that would have ensured their participation in the plan for the masses?

Boxcar

[mostpost]

We established previously that you are weak willed and dependent, and therefore feel everyone else must be as weak as you and cannot survive without the government. The irony is, while you think that choosing the government to help you live is a good idea, what you are choosing is death.

Really? Do you live across the street from Me? Have you seen me at the welfare office? Do you see me using food stamps at the grocery store? You have established nothing.

[lsbets]

How? Is there going to be a government worker in every Doctor's office. Do you really think either the doctor or the patient will stand for that? And what would be the purpose? You seem to think that government employees sit around and say, "Who can I kill today?....who's life can I interfere in?" The only people who have ever tried to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship are Republicans on abortion. For once in your life think critically, take off your ideological blinders and see things as they are. Oh...never mind... it's hopeless. :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Yes, people like you would certainly stand for it. Hell, you'd be cheering for it.

The only people who have ever tried to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship are Republicans on abortion.

Are you saying that the only people who are pro-life are Republican? Even you cannot be that stupid. Nevermind, you probably are.

For once in your life think critically, take off your ideological blinders and see things as they are. Oh...never mind... it's hopeless.

Isn't that funny coming from Obama's number one apologist. Seriously, you haven't shown even the beginning of a thought on here other than if the government says its good for me it must be.

[toetoe]

The only people who have ever tried to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship are Republicans on abortion.

Please forgive me my picky nature while I broaden that to the
doctor-patient-patient's mate-fetus relationship.

Also, you do a disservice to non-Republicans that are not abortionists, implying that they would never ... um ... interfere. :eek: .

[mostpost]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mostpost
The only people who have ever tried to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship are Republicans on abortion.

BAD choice of words on my part. Let me rephrase.
Republicans talk about not interfering in the doctor-patient relationship, but they are all for interfering when it comes to abortion.

[Snag]

How? Is there going to be a government worker in every Doctor's office. Do you really think either the doctor or the patient will stand for that? And what would be the purpose? You seem to think that government employees sit around and say, "Who can I kill today?....who's life can I interfere in?" The only people who have ever tried to interfere in the doctor-patient relationship are Republicans on abortion. For once in your life think critically, take off your ideological blinders and see things as they are. Oh...never mind... it's hopeless. :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Wow! Seven Smiles! I guess I've hit a nerve.

I didn't say the government would be sitting in on the counsling. They will help write the script, questioner for the doctor to fill out, or some form acknowleding that the counsling took place and acknowleding that certain rules were followed.

You seem to want to spin this and make it seem as if it was not written into the bill. It certainly was and, in my opinion, was written for a speicfic reason. A reason I cannot support.

[boxcar]

th.

Really? Do you live across the street from Me? Have you seen me at the welfare office? Do you see me using food stamps at the grocery store? You have established nothing.

He has established your apparent loathing for independence, self-sufficiency freedom, individual liberty and capitalism. (In sort, your irrational fear for living life -- not to be confused with merely existing.) Therefore, he has also established your need for dependence upon the state. You just can't break away from Nanny Gov's breast milk. It's the way you go through life feeling secure.

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Wow! Seven Smiles! I guess I've hit a nerve.

I didn't say the government would be sitting in on the counsling. They will help write the script, questioner for the doctor to fill out, or some form acknowleding that the counsling took place and acknowleding that certain rules were followed.

You seem to want to spin this and make it seem as if it was not written into the bill. It certainly was and, in my opinion, was written for a speicfic reason. A reason I cannot support.
Here is an interview with Congressman LLoyd Doggett (D) TX.

He talks about the so-called Euthanasia clause.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#32275044

Perhaps he can make it understandable to you. God knows I've tried.
He says, as I have that all this section does is to provide payment under Medicare to a doctor who counsels a patient on living wills and other end of life issues. These discussions take place at and only at the request of the patient. They are not mandatory!!!!!!!!!

As to government input, the bill does contain items to be covered in any discussion. There probably would be some sort of record of the discussion; at least that it had taken place. This is the same as your private insurance insisting on proof that your doctor had really treated you for whatever he last treated you for.

In the video the discussion takes place between 1:30 and 3:10

[Snag]

Here is an interview with Congressman LLoyd Doggett (D) TX.

He talks about the so-called Euthanasia clause.


Once again Most you spin and try to divert. I NEVER said anything about euthanasia. Doggett has the same problem you do. Nice try but it doesn't work with me.

How about staying on topic with End of Life Counsling?

[mostpost]

Once again Most you spin and try to divert. I NEVER said anything about euthanasia. Doggett has the same problem you do. Nice try but it doesn't work with me.

How about staying on topic with End of Life Counsling?
How about you show my entire post?
Here it is
Here is an interview with Congressman LLoyd Doggett (D) TX.

He talks about the so-called Euthanasia clause.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#32275044

Perhaps he can make it understandable to you. God knows I've tried.
He says, as I have that all this section does is to provide payment under Medicare to a doctor who counsels a patient on living wills and other end of life issues. These discussions take place at and only at the request of the patient. They are not mandatory!!!!!!!!!
AND here is where I answer your allegations

As to government input, the bill does contain items to be covered in any discussion. There probably would be some sort of record of the discussion; at least that it had taken place. This is the same as your private insurance insisting on proof that your doctor had really treated you for whatever he last treated you for.

In the video the discussion takes place between 1:30 and 3:10

[boxcar]

How about you show my entire post?
Here it is
Here is an interview with Congressman LLoyd Doggett (D) TX.

He talks about the so-called Euthanasia clause.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#32275044

Perhaps he can make it understandable to you. God knows I've tried.
He says, as I have that all this section does is to provide payment under Medicare to a doctor who counsels a patient on living wills and other end of life issues. These discussions take place at and only at the request of the patient. They are not mandatory!!!!!!!!!
AND here is where I answer your allegations

If I want counseling on living wills, I'll consult with my lawyer, not with my doctor.

The U.S. government needs to get out of my business and my personal life and stay out! The state is not welcome!

Boxcar

[PaceAdvantage]

But it is the Statist's purpose to make as many individuals as possible dependent on the government. Most Americans are, in fact, satisfied with what they pay for their own health care, the quality of the health care they receive, and their health-care coverage. However, the Statist continues to press for government control over the entire health-care system. He is not satisfied with constraining liberty today. He seeks to reach into posterity to constrain liberty tomorrow.

For the Statist, this is the ultimate authority over the individual he has long craved. Once the individual is entrapped, the Statist controls his fate. The individual will be seduced by the notion that he is receiving a benefit from the state when in reality the government is merely rationing benefits. The individual is tethered to the state, literally and utterly reliant on it for his health and survival. Not only does the government have an ownership interest in private property, but it also has one in the physical individual. Rather than the individual making cost-benefit and cost-quality decisions about his own condition, the Statist will do it for him. And the Statist will do it very poorly, as he does most other things.When Levin mentions other things, he is speaking of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid -- all government run systems that are putting future generations at great risk with their massive costs and inability to pay for themselves.Despite dire warnings from the Congressional Budget Office, from the former comptroller of the United States, and from the various trustees that these programs [Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid] are unsustainable and demand urgent attention, the pillaging of future generations not only continues, but the Statist proposes much more of it in the form of government-run "national health care" or "universal health care." As with Roosevelt and Johnson before him, for today's Statist this is about maximizing power.Emphasis mine.

The above quotes are from Mark Levin's book, Liberty and Tyranny. I recommend it highly...

[Tom]

Chris Dodd was just diagnosed with a disease that is essentially 100% survivable here under our HC system. He want to give us a system like Britain, where the same disease is 25% fatal.

Nice guy.

[hcap]

Chris Dodd was just diagnosed with a disease that is essentially 100% survivable here under our HC system. He want to give us a system like Britain, where the same disease is 25% fatal.

Nice guy.Prostate yes, but OVERALL CANCER deaths...

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer

Deaths per 100,000
# 1 Netherlands: 433 deaths per 100,000 peopl
# 2 Italy: 418 deaths per 100,000 people
# 3 Hungary: 411 deaths per 100,000 people
# 4 Luxembourg: 409.7 deaths per 100,000 people
# 5 Slovakia: 405.3 deaths per 100,000 people
# 6 Ireland: 357.6 deaths per 100,000 people
# 7 Czech Republic: 335.4 deaths per 100,000 people
# 8 New Zealand: 327.3 deaths per 100,000 people
# 9 United States: 321.9 deaths per 100,000 people
# 10 Australia: 298.9 deaths per 100,000 people
# 11 Norway: 289.4 deaths per 100,000 people
# 12 France: 286.1 deaths per 100,000 people
# 13 Austria: 280 deaths per 100,000 people
# 14 Sweden: 268.2 deaths per 100,000 people
# 15 Finland: 255.4 deaths per 100,000 people
# 16 United Kingdom: 253.5 deaths per 100,000 people

[boxcar]

When Levin mentions other things, he is speaking of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid -- all government run systems that are putting future generations at great risk with their massive costs and inability to pay for themselves.Emphasis mine.

The above quotes are from Mark Levin's book, Liberty and Tyranny. I recommend it highly...

Excellent book! You have good tastes. :)

Boxcar

[hcap]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

List by the United Nations Population Division List by the CIA World Factbook
(all 2009 est.)
Rank Country or territory (deaths/1,000 live births)
Infant mortality rate


1 Iceland 2.9
2 Singapore 3.0
3 Japan 3.2
4 Sweden 3.2
5 Norway 3.3
6 Hong Kong 3.7
7 Finland 3.7
8 Czech Republic 3.8
9 Switzerland 4.1
10 South Korea 4.1
11 Belgium 4.2
12 France 4.2
13 Spain 4.2
14 Germany 4.3
15 Denmark 4.4
16 Austria 4.4
17 Australia 4.4
18 Luxembourg 4.5
19 Netherlands 4.7
20 Israel 4.7
21 Slovenia 4.8
22 United Kingdom 4.8
23 Canada 4.8
24 Ireland 4.9
25 Italy 5.0
26 Portugal 5.0
27 New Zealand 5.0
28 Cuba 5.1
29 Channel Islands (Jersey and Guernsey)5.2
30 Brunei 5.5
31 Cyprus 5.9
32 New Caledonia 6.1
33 United States 6.3

[PaceAdvantage]

Hcap, your cancer numbers posted seem totally at odds with this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00643/news-graphics-2007-_643378a.gif

[hcap]

PA,

Ok, but my stats are more in line with this. How would you explain our piss poor standing? All is not well in righty-righty big Pharma corrupt big insurance land

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.
Rank

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America



And we pay thru the teeth.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_ 2005.html

Total Expenditure on Health as % of GDP 2000-2005

Rank Location 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

2 United States of America 13.2 13.9 14.7 15.1 15.2 15.2

41 United Kingdom 7.2 7.5 7.6 7.7 8 8.2



And let's not forget our awful showing in terms of--Infant mortality rate (deaths/1,000 live birth). Rank 33 !

[hcap]

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/141772/the_only_option_for_health_reform_is_the_public_op tion/

"The United States has fewer physicians, nurses and hospital beds than most developed nations. In the United States, 28 percent say it is "difficult to get care"; in most European countries, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, 15 percent say that. In terms of continuity of care (i.e., five-plus years with the same doctor), the United States is the worst among developed nations"

"In the United States, health care costs were $6,001 per person in 2007. By contrast, in Japan, with life expectancy 4.6 years more than the United States (presumably a cost-increasing factor), health care costs were $2,139 per person; in the United Kingdom, $2,232; Sweden (the ultimate "welfare state"), $2,520; France, $2,903; and Canada, $3,001."

"And, this is not just an individual problem; this is a national problem. Health-care system costs in the United States are 17 percent of gross national product (and currently increasing 12 percent per year). No other country in the world has health care costs that exceed 11 percent of GNP, and the average among developed nations is 9 percent. These high costs are making the U.S. uncompetitive in many areas. For example, U.S. carmakers spend $1,500 per car on health care -- more than the cost of the steel in cars -- and are competing against European and Japanese carmakers who spend nothing for health care."

[Snag]

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/141772/the_only_option_for_health_reform_is_the_public_op tion/

"The United States has fewer physicians, nurses and hospital beds than most developed nations. In the United States, 28 percent say it is "difficult to get care"; in most European countries, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, 15 percent say that. In terms of continuity of care (i.e., five-plus years with the same doctor), the United States is the worst among developed nations"

"In the United States, health care costs were $6,001 per person in 2007. By contrast, in Japan, with life expectancy 4.6 years more than the United States (presumably a cost-increasing factor), health care costs were $2,139 per person; in the United Kingdom, $2,232; Sweden (the ultimate "welfare state"), $2,520; France, $2,903; and Canada, $3,001."

"And, this is not just an individual problem; this is a national problem. Health-care system costs in the United States are 17 percent of gross national product (and currently increasing 12 percent per year). No other country in the world has health care costs that exceed 11 percent of GNP, and the average among developed nations is 9 percent. These high costs are making the U.S. uncompetitive in many areas. For example, U.S. carmakers spend $1,500 per car on health care -- more than the cost of the steel in cars -- and are competing against European and Japanese carmakers who spend nothing for health care."

hcap, if we are so bad and all these other countries have better percentages than we do, why do so many come here for treatment? I would take it from your posts that you feel we should spend less to get more in line, percentage wise, with other nations. Good luck with that!

[hcap]

I have already dealt with this.
Post # 851

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?p=726058#post726058

.................................................. ...........................



I live in the Dallas area. A very good customer of mine does MRIs at Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas. He said he sees about 2 Canadians a week.

I have another very good friend who is a nurse at a hospital in Tampa. She said they have a regular inflow of Canadians coming through on vacation to get procedures and tests they would have to wait for at home.

Neither one of these locations is anywhere near Canada, but if it happens regularly in Texas and Florida, I think it is safe to say it happens even more regularly closer to the border.


There are anecdotal accounts on all sides. And stats as well.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/21/health/21patient.html


"At least 85,000 Americans choose to travel abroad for medical procedures each year, according to a recent report by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company. Treatment includes dental implants, hip and knee replacements, heart valve replacements and bypass surgery. The cost of surgery performed overseas can be as little as 20 percent of the price of the same procedure in the United States, according to a recent report by the American Medical Association."


http://healthcareforamerica.blogspot.com/


http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/03/2...avel/index.html

" So, with a little digging online, she found several high quality hospitals vying for her business, at a fraction of the U.S. cost. Within a month, she was on a plane from her home in Las Vegas, Nevada, to New Delhi, India. Surgeons at Max Hospital fixed her heart for "under $10,000 total, including travel."

Giustina is just one of millions around the world journeying outside their native land for medical treatment, a phenomenon known as "medical tourism." Experts say the trend in global health care has just begun. Next year alone, an estimated 6 million Americans will travel abroad for surgery, according to a 2008 Deloitte study. "Medical care in countries such as India, Thailand and Singapore can cost as little as 10 percent of the cost of comparable care in the United States," the report found."

.................................................. ..............................

And in all fairness, as cost is a major hurdle here, in Canada and some European countries there are long waiting lists for some procedures......

"Some Canadians and Europeans said they chose to travel aboard, despite having national health plans, because they are tired of waiting -- sometimes years -- for treatment."


Still we pay substantially more as a percentage of GDP as other first world countries, and are ranked only number 37 in terms of quality of outcomes except for some diseases and condition. Still, something must be shaping these opinions.......

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118423/a...dical-care.aspx

http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/wjqojppsmu2dj89cz7jjmq.gif

[Tom]

So let me get this straight....we are a horrible nation with people dying by the busload everyday and the way to correct that is to take a set number of doctors and nurses and introduce 50 million new patients into the HC care system.

Yes, diluting the doctor time per patient seems to be the answer here.
I bow to to the left...I never would have figure that one out.
To much doctoring going on.

[hcap]

Never said a horrible nation. Horrible health care yes.

The fact that other nations do better than we do in most cases-not all-and pay substantially less-should be a wake up call. Just posted a cartoon on the Cost of health care thread. Maybe it explains it?

http://static.crooksandliars.com/files/uploads/2009/08/8-3-09_b0926.gif

[lsbets]

The methodology of the Who rankings have been thoroughly debunked, which is why no one except the far left uses those rankings in any discussion of the issue, because the far left agrees with the way the rankings were complied. If those ranking were credible, we'd be hearing them everyday from supporters of reform.

There is a hell of a lot more than health insurance coverage that goes into life expectancy. Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely misinformed.

As Pa posted, we do a much better job of treating serious illness and cancers than any other nation. The vast majority of medical innovations are developed in our country.

To say that because there are some problems we need a new, massive program run by the federal government is insane. That would be like amputating someone's arm because they have a paper cut on their finger.

Those pushing the most radical of reforms have zero interest in health care. Their interest is in redefining the role of government in America and redefining the American economic system, and not to the benefit of the American people.

[hcap]

The methodology of the Who rankings have been thoroughly debunked, which is why no one except the far left uses those rankings in any discussion of the issue, because the far left agrees with the way the rankings were complied.Source for this claim? Please no John Stossel. Yes, to a certain extent life expectancy is not the only factor that counts, since lifestyle, diet and other factors contribute much, but it does relate to preventative care and also is directly influenced by the quality of health care.

BTW, I may accept that our very low rank of 37 may be exaggerated, but by how much? 25%? 50%, 100%. You would really have to accept a huge miscalculation to bring our standing up near the top.

As Pa posted, we do a much better job of treating serious illness and cancers than any other nation.
I have posted contrary info.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer

OVERALL CANCER deaths...

[lsbets]

No, you posted number of deaths. PA posted survival rates. Big difference. Do you know what the difference is?

[hcap]

Not so big. Death rates are the final tally of a number of factors contributing to survival.

I posted

USA: 321.9 deaths per 100,000 people
UK: 253.5 deaths per 100,000 people

Are you claiming that the quality of health care is irrelevant to the above death rates? Must we assume that non-health care factors are the only valid factors that matter in affecting how many die or survive?

A bit of a stretch.

[lsbets]

Unsurprisingly you don't get the difference. You posted the number of deaths per 100K population, not the death rate for those who get cancer. You have a much better chance surviving cancer under out "horrible" health care system than anywhere else. I bet you still can't see the difference between what you and PA posted.

[hcap]

Of course I get the difference. But you are trying to remove the effectiveness of the native health care systems from the bottom line of number of deaths.

If you are correct, much fewer people in the UK get cancer than in the USA. And so the British system may be irrelevant to survival rates. Any stats to back up that thought?
USA: 321.9 deaths per 100,000 people
UK: 253.5 deaths per 100,000 people
Without including health care in the mix, it would mean 27% fewer people contract cancer in Britain than the US.
Better diet? Better exercise programs?

[DJofSD]

hcap, if everything about the US health care system is so bad, don't you think it would be easier for you to move to Cuba? Then you can tell us all about how wonderful life is and we'll be happy for you. Go ahead. I double dare you.

[lsbets]

I don't know why more people would get cancer in some countries than in others. There are a lot of factors that go into it. Are you disputing that the US has the highest cancer survival rates in the world?

[Tom]

Just wait until all doctors have hundreds more patients to see every week.
Our quality of care will sky-rocket. :lol:

(Nice dodge on that one, though hcap......I would avoid it too if I were trying to rationalize this malarkey)

[LottaKash]

Hcap, your cancer numbers posted seem totally at odds with this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560849/UK-cancer-survival-rate-lowest-in-Europe.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00643/news-graphics-2007-_643378a.gif

PA, there may be a problem with these stats.....One is considered to be a "cancer-survivor" if he/she lasts for 5-months or more after their "cancer-giving" treatments are concluded.....The numbers change drastically after that 5 month initiation.....They do not tell us this....They still want us to walk for the "cure".....There are cures for cancer, but, you must go "underground" to get to them.....Cancer is "BIG" business, so let's all walk for the $Billions$....(heehee)

I am a 5-year Cancer-Survivor, and I know a a bit about these things....I survived, but not by "their" protocols....

best,

[hcap]

I don't know why more people would get cancer in some countries than in others. There are a lot of factors that go into it. Are you disputing that the US has the highest cancer survival rates in the world?According to these stats, England and Wales suffer a higher incidence of Cancer than the USA. Therefore, the question I posted to you becomes more important.....

If you are correct, much fewer people in the UK get cancer than in the USA. And so the British system may be irrelevant to survival rates. Any stats to back up that thought?
Quote:
USA: 321.9 deaths per 100,000 people
UK: 253.5 deaths per 100,000 people

Without including health care in the mix, it would mean 27% fewer people contract cancer in Britain than the US.
Better diet? Better exercise programs?

http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/rates38.html

http://rex.nci.nih.gov/NCI_Pub_Interface/raterisk/images/chart39.gif

[lsbets]

Your "stats" that you suddenly found seem to be at total odds with the verifiable stats PA posted. You do have a way of finding unverifiable stats to back up your positions.

If I read you correctly, you disagree with the stats PA posted that the US has the highest survival rates from cancer in the world, and the UK has the lowest in western Europe.

[hcap]

Yes, they are contradictory.

However including the UN rankings and infant mortality (how do you explain this considering how wonderful our system is?) , I would suspect the issue is not as simple as what you claim and PA posted.

[Snag]

Not so big. Death rates are the final tally of a number of factors contributing to survival.



hcap, can we back up to your post #101? Death rates contribute to survival? Is that really what you believe?

[toetoe]

the doctor-patient relationship ... when it comes to abortion.

Okay, now please address the concerns of the putative father and the fetus. Do they exist ? Do they have any rights ? Should the coulda-been-a father be consulted ?

[hcap]

This is what I said:

Not so big. Death rates are the final tally of a number of factors contributing to survival.
You cut off the thought:
hcap, can we back up to your post #101? Death rates contribute to survival? Is that really what you believe?
Although the study posted by PA is to the contrary, according to my posts.....

1-The UK has a higher incidence of contracting cancer than the US.

2-The UK has a lower rate of death by cancer.

Conclusion-the native health care system has something to do with this.

[lsbets]

This is what I said:

You cut off the thought:

Although the study posted by PA is to the contrary, according to my posts.....

1-The UK has a higher incidence of contracting cancer than the US.

2-The UK has a lower rate of death by cancer.

Conclusion-the native health care system has something to do with this.

According the the article PA linked to with his stats, the UK has the lowest cancer survival rates in western Europe. These numbers were based on the most comprehensive study ever done on the subject, and were published in a highly prestigious medical journal and subjected to peer review. You have previously told us that nothing in this journal can be questioned, it is beyond reproach. I think in this case I'll trust what PA linked to versus "your posts".

Again, deaths per 100K is not the same as survival rate. The two are much different.

But, based on the known facts - the US has the highest cancer survival rates in the world, and the UK has the lowest in western Europe, the obvious conclusion is the numbers you are using smell pretty fishy, almost perch like. I'm shocked.

Why does the UK have such a poor cancer survival rate? It probably has something to do with their health care system.

[hcap]

THE SITE THAT I LINKED:

http://www.nationmaster.com/index.php

Welcome to NationMaster, a massive central data source and a handy way to graphically compare nations. NationMaster is a vast compilation of data from such sources as the CIA World Factbook, UN, and OECD.

BTW, so tell me once again how our piss poor infant mortality rate is "perch"?
Or why our piss poor 37th rank among industrialized nations health systems is also "perch".

[lsbets]

A list of rankings, where one of the primary factors used is how socialized is the system, ranks us poorly. What a shocker.

There is a reason only the nutjobs refer to those rankings.

[Tom]

Rush said there will be only two health insurance companies in the end.

Statist Farm (*sing* Like a Big Brother, Statist Farm will be there!):D

All Statist

[hcap]

A list of rankings, where one of the primary factors used is how socialized is the system, ranks us poorly. What a shocker.

There is a reason only the nutjobs refer to those rankings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

Infant Mortality is not socialized. I don't believe the CIA is either.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Well, at least we beat Croatia!

List by the CIA World Factbook
(all 2009 est.)

Rank Country or territory Infant mortality rate
(deaths/1,000 live births)
1 Singapore 2.31
2 Bermuda 2.46
3 Sweden 2.75
4 Japan 2.79
5 Hong Kong 2.92
6 Macau 3.22
7 Iceland 3.23
8 France 3.33
9 Finland 3.47
10 Anguilla 3.52
11 Norway 3.58
12 Malta 3.75
13 Andorra 3.76
14 Czech Republic 3.79
15 Germany 3.99
16 Switzerland 4.18
17 Spain 4.21
18 Israel 4.22
19 Slovenia 4.25
20 Liechtenstein 4.25
21 South Korea 4.26
22 Denmark 4.34
23 Austria 4.42
24 Belgium 4.44
25 Guernsey 4.47
26 Luxembourg 4.56
27 Netherlands 4.73
28 Jersey 4.73
29 Australia 4.75
30 Portugal 4.78
31 Gibraltar 4.83
32 United Kingdom 4.85
33 New Zealand 4.92
34 Monaco 5.00
35 Wallis and Futuna 5.02
36 Canada 5.04
37 Ireland 5.05
38 Greece 5.16
39 San Marino 5.34
40 Taiwan 5.35
41 Isle of Man 5.37
42 Italy 5.51
43 European Union 5.72
44 Cuba 5.82
45 Guam 6.05
46 United States 6.26
47 Faroe Islands 6.32
48 Croatia 6.37

[lsbets]

You know I wasn't referring to infant mortality in my response. However, in your typical fashion, every time one of your claims is shown to be fishy, you simply deflect with something else.

Two things we have learned here that you still won't acknowledge:

1) The US has the highest cancer survival rates in the world, not bad for the system you think is so horrible. The UK has the lowest survival rates in western Europe. Pretty bad for a system you would like us to emulate.
2) The WHO rankings are pure bunk.

I have no idea why our infant mortality rate would be higher. I suspect it would have to do with a lot of other factors that are much more important than does everyone have health insurance.

[lsbets]

From wiki, thanks for the link Hcap:

While the United States reports every case of infant mortality, it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless.[5] And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."

:lol: :lol:

So, the US defines a live birth differently than most countries and that definition leads us to have a higher infant mortality rate, therefore experts say it is not practical to compare US reported rates with those of other nations.

Your points keep getting fishier Hcap.

[DJofSD]

You know I wasn't referring to infant mortality in my response. However, in your typical fashion, every time one of your claims is shown to be fishy, you simply deflect with something else.

Two things we have learned here that you still won't acknowledge:

1) The US has the highest cancer survival rates in the world, not bad for the system you think is so horrible. The UK has the lowest survival rates in western Europe. Pretty bad for a system you would like us to emulate.
2) The WHO rankings are pure bunk.

I have no idea why our infant mortality rate would be higher. I suspect it would have to do with a lot of other factors that are much more important than does everyone have health insurance.
Yes, and the wait time for treatment is a hell-of-a lot shorter in the US than other places in the world. I have heard it stated many times that people in England die while waiting for cancer treatment.

[46zilzal]

Virtually EVERY study done on cancer is based upon the STANDARD of 5 year survival. By that yard stick, the chances of recurrence are no higher than contracting a NEW malignancy, so those "numbers" listed are rather irrelevant to the reality of that definition.

[Tom]

So, the US defines a live birth differently than most countries and that definition leads us to have a higher infant mortality rate, therefore experts say it is not practical to compare US reported rates with those of other nations.


Strange, the baby enters the birth canal a lifeless form that can be tossed in the garbage on a whim and exits it more respected as a human being than most anywhere else in the world.

[chickenhead]

I have no idea why our infant mortality rate would be higher. I suspect it would have to do with a lot of other factors that are much more important than does everyone have health insurance.

Two reasons mainly, which point to how strange our country really is. 1 is access to healthcare, poor people here have much higher rates of infant mortality than poorer people in other countries that do have universal health care, so that boosts our average. For instance black people just as a group are 2x our average. Neonatal care seems to be the big part of it.

The second reason is because for people that have it, the health care is really good, and we do lots of crazy things, like with our fertilization. Increase in twins, triplets, quads, etc..and our doctors can get all kind of super premies to live for awhile.

So I think we end up with a very high infant mortality for both those reasons -- we have lots of poor pregnant women who don't get the kind of care they need, and we have lots of very rich pregnant women who get very very good care.

Add them together and we have a comparatively high infant mortality rate.

[DJofSD]

So I think we end up with a very high infant mortality for both those reasons -- we have lots of poor pregnant women who don't get the kind of care they need, and we have lots of very rich pregnant women who get very very good care.


I recently had a conversation with a missionary who has spent a good deal of her life in the middle east. She told a story about the lack of knowledge that exists in the part of the world she lives in. The lack of fundamental knowledge and understanding that exists with poor, young mothers and soon-to-be mothers was amazing. This was separate from any kind of pregnancy and/or neo-natal care.

I can't help but think that even just a small amount of education and training would help reduce the rate of infant mortality in the muslim countries. But we all know there's little chance of that changing any time soon.

[hcap]

Here's the first part of the section you neglected to copy......

"The infant mortality rate correlates very strongly with and is among the best predictors of state failure.[3] IMR is also a useful indicator of a country's level of health or development, and is a component of the physical quality of life index. Some claim that the method of calculating IMR may vary between countries based on the way they define a live birth. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat."

Then you skip ahead and say....

"For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."

You forgot this.....

"However, all of the countries named adopted the WHO definition in the late 1980s or early 1990s.[7]"

Meaning the above WHO definition.
The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat."


Once again the US definition of mortality is quite close...

"The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size"

Therefore since the early 1990s, they pretty much have been reporting infant mortality under similar conditions to the USA. So although I might agree that we may not deserve rank 46, the definitions of life by country do not markedly skew the figures.

If you claim that our number 46 in ranking is in error, how much error is required to bring us from 46 to number1?

[46zilzal]

I
I can't help but think that even just a small amount of education and training would help reduce the rate of infant mortality in the muslim countries. But we all know there's little chance of that changing any time soon.

There are many European countries that do just that.

[lsbets]

You don't notice a significant difference between the WHO definition and the US definition? You've been outed again for posting fishy nonsense. There are still vast differences in the way different nations define a live birth. Look up the high ratio of stillborn births vs. infant mortality in all of the nations at the top of the list. Why are their ratios so high?

Once again, if those numbers were considered to be a reliable way to indicate quality of healthcare within the developed world, you would hear all of the supporters for "reform" screaming them everyday. There's a reason they are not using them to make their case. Care to hazard a guess?

:lol: :lol:

[hcap]

http://www.savethechildren.org/

http://www.savethechildren.org/publications/SOWM_2006_final.pdf?stationpub=000000&ArticleID=&NewsID=

PDF

State of the World's Mothers 2006 Up to date 2006 analysis of infant mortality rates published by Save the Children.

Page 39

Different numbers, but similar rankings.

Newborn Mortality in the Industrialized World

United States has One of the Highest Rates
Although the newborn mortality rate in the United States has fallen in recent decades,it is still higher than most other industrialized nations 2.5 times that of Finland,Iceland and Norway,and about three times higher than the newborn
mortality rate of Japan.

Here are some additional facts about newborn mortality
in industrialized countries:

Only about1 percent of the 4 million newborn deaths 110
every year occur in wealthy countries.

Japan has the worldís lowest newborn mortality rate
(1.8 per1,000 live births).

Latvia has the highest newborn mortality rate in the
industrialized world (6 per1,000 live births).

The United States is tied for second-to-last place with
Hungary,Malta,Poland and Slovakia (in all five countries,
there are 5 newborn deaths per1,000 live births).

The United States has more neonatologists and neonatal intensive care beds per person than Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom,but its newborn
mortality rate is higher than that of any of those countries.

In the United States,the newborn mortality rate for all races combined is 4.7 deaths per 1,000 live births, butfor non-Hispanic blacks,the rate is 9.3 deaths per 1,000 live births.

Research in northern Belgium (Flanders) found that mothers with low levels of education were much more likely to miscarry and suffer the death of a newborn.

[hcap]

More......

The seventh annual Mothers Index helps document conditions for mothers and children in 125 countries 26 developed nations and 99 in the developing world and shows where mothers fare best and where they face the greatest hardships. All countries for which sufficient data were available are included in the Index.

Why should Save the Children be so concerned with mothers? Because close to 75 years of field experience has taught us that the quality of childrens lives depends on the health,security and well-being of their mothers.
In short,providing mothers with access to education, economic opportunities and maternal and child health care,including family planning,gives mothers and their children the best chance to survive and thrive.

2006 Mothers Index

Top Ten

Rank Country
1 Sweden
2 Denmark
2 Finland
4 Austria
4 Germany
4 Norway
7 Australia
7 Netherlands
9 Canada
10 United Kingdom*
10 United States*

[lsbets]

The save the children numbers do nothing to change the fact that here we define almost everything as a live birth, while most other nations have a much narrower definition.

If your argument had anything to it, we would hear it everyday. As usual, your argument is empty and fishy.

[hcap]

You don't notice a significant difference between the WHO definition and the US definition?

..Look up the high ratio of stillborn births vs. infant mortality in all of the nations at the top of the list. Why are their ratios so high?
..that here we define almost everything as a live birth, while most other nations have a much narrower definition.

Bogus. The definitions are very close. Some countries perhaps, but not all the 45 ranked above us. There are real reasons we do poorly as noted in the Save the Children pdf

The WHO definition.

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat."

The US definition.

"The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size"

Any sign of life is not stillborn by definition
The number of countries not reporting stillborns under our definition does not total the 45 ranked above us. The WHO definition states "independent signs of life". The US definition states "show any sign of life"
What is the difference?
This the definition of stillborn.

From wiki...

A stillbirth occurs when a fetus which has died, in the uterus or during labor or delivery, exits a woman's body. The term is often used in distinction to live birth or miscarriage. Most stillbirths occur in full term pregnancies.

Neither the WHO or the US terms would include "stiilborn" as infant mortality

[lsbets]

If you can't tell the difference between "any signs of life" and "independent signs of life" than there is no point discussing anything with you, you are too dense. There is an enormous difference in those definitions.

Now, as things tighten I have no doubt we would have a slightly higher rate than other developed nations. We have a very high population of illegal immigrants who quite often do not seek out services for fear of deportation. While the parents might be illegal, the children are citizens if born here. I would be curious what the disparity is in the US between children whose parents are citizens and children whose parents are not. I would imagine those numbers are quite revealing.

[46zilzal]

the difference is the APGAR

[chickenhead]

Now, as things tighten I have no doubt we would have a slightly higher rate than other developed nations. We have a very high population of illegal immigrants who quite often do not seek out services for fear of deportation. While the parents might be illegal, the children are citizens if born here. I would be curious what the disparity is in the US between children whose parents are citizens and children whose parents are not. I would imagine those numbers are quite revealing.

It's poor black people ls, it's pretty clear if you look at the numbers. By state, the highest are Washington DC, Louisiana, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, etc.

California, Arizona, and Texas are quite low in comparison.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/ranks/rank17.html

[hcap]

If your argument had anything to it, we would hear it everyday. As usual, your argument is empty and fishy.

...Once again, if those numbers were considered to be a reliable way to indicate quality of healthcare within the developed world, you would hear all of the supporters for "reform" screaming them everyday. There's a reason they are not using them to make their case. Care to hazard a guess?
They are used as a yardstick-by many.

Remember I used tables both from the UN and the CIA.
As chick posted the Census bureau uses similar numbers.
As the CDC.

PBS accepts the numbers or similar....
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/uncategorized/infant-mortality-rates/3463/

"However, the United States has a higher infant mortality rate than most developed countries, and the gap appears to be widening. The U.S. rank has been steadily worsening: in 1960, the U.S. was ranked 12th in the world; by 2004, the U.S. fell to 29th, tied with Poland and Slovakia, and worse than Japan, Cuba, and most of the European Union (2004 is the most recent international comparative data published by the CDC). The infant mortality rate in the US currently stands at 6.86 infant deaths per 1,000."

"A separate report published by the Commission to Build a Healthier America earlier this month found that there is a high correlation between infant mortality and the education level of the mother. Infant mortality is 40 percent higher among mothers with 13 to 15 years of schooling, compared with mothers with at least 16 years of school (i.e. a college degree).

"The report also ranked the states based on the disparity in infant mortality rates between those mothers with college degrees and those without. Tennessee and the District of Columbia had the highest discrepancy in infant mortality rates between college and non-college educated mothers."

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2008/10/wa_image_infant-mortality1.gif

Notice the source:the CDC


NYT quoting from the CDC..
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/health/07stat.html

So although there are discrepancies and inaccuracies, overall relative rankings are accepted generally.

A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries.
OK, here is a newer update from U.S. News & World October 15, 2008
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2008/10/15/us-ranks-29th-in-infant-mortality.html
Once again the CDC is used as the source.
U.S. Ranks 29th in Infant Mortality
Rate is 50% higher than national goals, CDC says
Posted October 15, 2008

WEDNESDAY, Oct. 15 (HealthDay News) -- With nearly seven infant deaths per 1,000 live births in 2004, the United States ranked 29th in the world in infant mortality.

This compared to 27th in 2000, 23rd in 1990 and 12th in 1960.

That grim statistical picture is contained in a report released Wednesday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics.

In 2004, the latest year that data are available for all countries, infant death rates were generally lowest (below 3.5 per 1,000 births) in certain Scandinavian countries (Finland, Norway and Sweden) and East Asian countries (Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore). There were 22 countries with infant death rates below 5.0 per 1,000.

[hcap]

Obviously all of the above agencies and journalists accept generally the infant mortality numbers despite some discrepancies in data interpretation.
Since you have lost ground debating infant mortality, we can go back to either discussing our....

1- 37th ranking on overall health and outcomes instead- by the UN.

Or

2-the fact that we pay more as a percentage of GDP than any other industrialized country.

Nice try. :lol:

[lsbets]

Umm, Hcap - your WHO rankings have been shown to be bogus, your claims about our horrible health care system have been shown to be bogus, and it has been shown that comparing statistics compiled from country to country using different methodologies is shaky, or shall we say, fishy. So I fail to see what I have lost. All I've done is show once again that you are incapable of analysis and thought, a theme of your posting since you've been here. Infant mortality? I wondered why ours was higher, and posted some faults with the comparisons. Chickenhead at least attempted to give reasons. All you said was we suck. The bad news for you is, we don't suck.

So now we're down to we spend more. Okay. I don't think our employer based system is cost effective. The answer to that is not more government involvement. All that will do is make it worse. Even if somehow government in the US for the very first time ever were able to get spending under control, innovation would disappear. THe only solution to health care costs is to give people ownership over their choices of how their health care dollars are spent.

Of course we know that BO has no interest in health care, his interest is in an ever expanding government which is lord and master over its people.

[Tom]

[QUOTE=46zilzal]the difference is the APGAR[/QUOTE

Ah, good old Virgina...how is she these days?
Still practicing?

[Tom]

Speaking of Ted Kennedy.....under OBamacare, would they give him an Obotomy to fix his head?

[hcap]

Umm, Hcap - your WHO rankings have been shown to be bogus, your claims about our horrible health care system have been shown to be bogus, and it has been shown that comparing statistics compiled from country to country using different methodologies is shaky, or shall we say, fishy. So I fail to see what I have lost. All I've done is show once again that you are incapable of analysis and thought, a theme of your posting since you've been here. Infant mortality? I wondered why ours was higher, and posted some faults with the comparisons. Chickenhead at least attempted to give reasons. All you said was we suck. The bad news for you is, we don't suck.
Give it up. The newer and latest-as far as I can tell-study by the CDC bring us to rank 29.

So let's see....
The Cia
The Un
The Census Bureau
The CDC.
Are all in agreement pretty much in relative standings.
You are bucking a headwind. You may have your head in the sand, but ALL of the above accept at least the general standings

The fact U.S. News & World Report-the same organization that originally "suggested" the discrepancies in the initial UN report....it has been suggested that some other developed countries do not. A 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report claims that "First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries.is now quoting from the CDC report, seems to "suggest" that they are now somewhat in agreement with the newer numbers from the CDC-year 2008. In their newest article, there is no mention or link to their earlier report "suggesting" the problems with earlier cross comparisons. BTW, are there any other reports other than that :1: single 2006 article in U.S. News & World Report pointing out those comparison problems?

It would seem the CDC, by raising our ranking from # 47 or so to # 29 might have been a reflection of some of the previous problems now taken into account

[Snag]

I guess for hcap, being "generally" right and "pretty much in relative standings" is close enough.

[lsbets]

Hcap, now I'm starting to think you are just stupid.

It was your WHO rankings that I said are bogus. I did not say we don't rank behind other nations in infant mortality. But I did say your who rankings are bullshit, and they are (the ones about us sucking overall). Learn to read. Then learn to think.

Do we have problems? Yes. Do we suck. No, and that sucks for you because the basis of your argument is we suck.

[boxcar]

Hcap, now I'm starting to think you are just stupid.

It was your WHO rankings that I said are bogus. I did not say we don't rank behind other nations in infant mortality. But I did say your who rankings are bullshit, and they are (the ones about us sucking overall). Learn to read. Then learn to think.

Do we have problems? Yes. Do we suck. No, and that sucks for you because the basis of your argument is we suck.

Well, since y'all broached the subject of "sucking", permit to add that Statism sucks really big time! :D

Boxcar

[hcap]

Hcap, now I'm starting to think you are just stupid.

It was your WHO rankings that I said are bogus. I did not say we don't rank behind other nations in infant mortality. But I did say your who rankings are bullshit, and they are (the ones about us sucking overall). Learn to read. Then learn to think.

Do we have problems? Yes. Do we suck. No, and that sucks for you because the basis of your argument is we suck.During this "conversation, you have called me dense and now stupid. Meanwhile I think I have made my case. I already have stipulated to the fact that the UN data is faulty. But as shown by the CIA rankings, and now the CDC rankings-not enough to markedly change the relative standings. I would think rank 29 as shown in the latest CDC study is a realistic number. Wouldn't you say? Why aren't we number 1 or 2?
Sucking? Yeah.

[PaceAdvantage]

During this "conversation, you have called me dense and now stupid.You're not trying to say you've never called anyone a name on here, are you?

So why whine about it now?

You could always go with your tried and true "STFU" if you get stuck....remember how much you used that in the past?

I love it when Hcap tries to come off as the victimized angel around here...:lol:

[hcap]

You're not trying to say you've never called anyone a name on here, are you?

So why whine about it now?

You could always go with your tried and true "STFU" if you get stuck....remember how much you used that in the past?

I love it when Hcap tries to come off as the victimized angel around here...:lol:Why don't you respond to....
But as shown by the CIA rankings, and now the CDC rankings-not enough to markedly change the relative standings. I would think rank 29 as shown in the latest CDC study is a realistic number. Wouldn't you say? Why aren't we number 1 or 2?Instead of playing the late to the plate "moderator".

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm giving you as much response and respect as you gave me to my fact that the US is NUMBER 1 when it comes to cancer survival....and England, with its state-sponsored health care, is LAST among the European Union....

[cj's dad]

Why don't you respond to....
Instead of playing the late to the plate "moderator".

Possibly because he has a real job !!?!! How 'bout you ???