On Aug 29, 2009, at 1:30 AM, David Cake wrote: > At 2:21 PM -0400 28/8/09, Charles Bennett wrote: >> It's not the 1 trillion. >> >> http://www.usdebtclock.org/ >> >> It's that the government has spent ALL of our money already. >> >> We already know that the CBO says that his health care reform will >> not >> only not save any money but will cost more that what we have now. > > Given that the US health care costs are the highest of the > OECD nations, for lower success measures on almost all important > metrics, then if you can't manage to find ways to reduce that figure > even after a significant reform process, your nation is obviously > just incompetent. > If reform doesn't actually save you money, just give up and > outsource your entire national health system to some other nation. > Its your only hope. > Seriously, the US health system is a laughing stock and a > national tragedy. Attempting to muddy that basic truth with partisan > carping about Obama is amazingly counterproductive.
It depends on what you have. Cancer? You want to be in the US <http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737> "Survival Rates Significantly Higher in United States Than in Europe One of the reports compares the statistics from Europe with those from the United States and shows that for most solid tumors, survival rates were significantly higher in US patients than in European patients. This analysis, headed by Arduino Verdecchia, PhD, from the National Center for Epidemiology, Health Surveillance, and Promotion, in Rome, Italy, was based on the most recent data available. It involved about 6.7 million patients from 21 countries, who were diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2002. The age-adjusted 5-year survival rates for all cancers combined was 47.3% for men and 55.8% for women, which is significantly lower than the estimates of 66.3% for men and 62.9% for women from the US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program ( P < .001)." Or specifically Breast Cancer? If not Cuba then the US.. Where is the UK? #22 <Five year relative breast cancer survival rates from CONCORD study. Rank....Country....mean (95% confidence interval) 1..........Cuba..........84.0 (82.9, 85.2) 2..........US.............83.9 (83.7, 84.1) 3..........Canada......82.5 (81.9, 83.0) 4.........Sweden......82.0 (81.2, 82.7) 5.........Japan..........81.6 (79.5, 83.5) 6.........Australia.. ..80.7 (80.1, 81.3) 8.........France........79.8 (78.2, 81.4) 22.......England......69.8 (69.5, 70.2)> <http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7278> The point is, the US does some things extremely well because there is a profit motive to find those cures. You do not want to change that. Prostate cancer? I think the US 5 year survival rate is 4x the UK. (That one can be debated, since we do much earlier detection and the UK does not.) > Chuck, admit it. You know the US health system is broken. It is not broken for MOST people, just some, and we can do a lot to help the few without trying to change the system for everyone. There are a lot of things to fix that does not involve the government doing anything other that tweaking the rules. ""The new polling also shows that 80% of those with insurance rate their own coverage as good or excellent. That’s up from 70% in May." <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/august_2009/confidence_in_u_s_health_care_system_has_grown_in_recent_months > "Just 28% say they are willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans can have health insurance. Sixty percent (60%) are opposed. Those figures are little changed since May." So, despite what Obama says, there is no "outcry" for reform. 60%? Think about that. that means that a fair percentage of people that voted FOR Obama are happy with their health care and do not want to pay higher taxes to cover the few that are not covered now. It simply CANNOT be all republicans. > You > know, deep in your heart, that no Republican administration is ever > going to really try fixing it. Nor is a Democratic one. It's not about party, it's about stupidity, greed and power. You actually think they give a shit about the OUTCOME for people? That is why they are demanding that THEY get the same care as the public option. oh wait.. I guess some are more equal than others. Both parties have their base that they pander to. If you are a lawyer or a union member, then the Democrats have your back. Notice. 1000 pages of crap and not one page of tort reform. > And you probably also would have to > grudgingly admit that the Obama administration is about as competent > a Democrat administration on the issue as you are likely to get. So far the Obama administration is living up to it's amateur hour reputation. It hasn't been able to stay on message, it's been reactive rather than proactive, Biden.. Hell, let's be honest, Biden makes Quayle look like a fucking genius. The administration has over reached, mistaking Obama's PERSONAL popularity with a popularity for his programs. It's obvious that there is a huge difference between people that bought into his rhetoric and people that want to implement his agenda. Obama: "The latest Rasmussen daily tracking poll shows that President Barack Obama for the first time has a negative approval index — more Americans disapprove of his job performance than approve." ... "The raw numbers are pretty straightforward — 31 percent of Americans strongly approve of the way Barack Obama is handling his job, 33 percent strongly disapprove," Rasmussen said. and for Congress.. "59% Would Vote to Replace Entire Congress" <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/59_would_vote_to_replace_entire_congress > Again. That, has to include a lot of Democrats. to get to 59% > So > this is your best chance to fix it. And you can help, or indulge in > partisan bitching, like the rest of Republican party. It' just that the currently proposed solution is unacceptable to me. At least the parts I have managed to read. Come up with a DIFFERENT plan. One that works. There is no need to rush this to completion and it's actually OK to toss the 1000 pages and start over. I'd rather see a few years of tweaking the rules and see how that works out rather than toss the system in the middle of what will likely become a depression. (much more likely if we keep spending like this) and in the face of a looming inflation rate jump. > >> We know that Obama blew the deficit estimates by 2 trillion (somehow >> his inability to get it right , after ignoring the CBO number of 10 >> trillion, was still bush's fault) >> >> 1) medicare is broke. 39 trillion in the red >> 2) Social Security is 10 trillion in the red >> 3) Our unfunded liabilities are about the same as the WORLDS GDP. >> 4) We are spending a little less than 1 billion dollars a DAY to just >> to pay the interest on our debt. >> >> Now we are in the worst recession since the great depression. >> >> Unemployment is near 10% >> >> IRS revenues are down 37% and the over all loss of home values etc. >> exceeds 12 trillion, so the people that had some money have a lot >> less. >> (those rich folks aren't so rich at the moment..) >> >> So the answer is to spend MORE? WTF? > > Yes. The answer is to spend more in the short term to fix the > long term problem. When you have NO MONEY, it is simply not an option, but it's worse than that. When you have no money, your "income" is down 34%, and you are already borrowing more than you have in the last 200 years. You are well and truly broke. Spending more, no matter how desirable, is dumb. Spending more on a 1000 page plan that no one understands, not realizing ANY cost savings, while the amount it costs you skyrockets is simply nuts. What did Conyer (D) say? He said. <minor paraphrase> What is the point of reading the bill when it would take two days and two lawyers to explain it to you? and this is from someone that is going to vote FOR it? OMG.. <http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/07/democrat-conyers-says-it-would-take-two.html > The CBO report shows that in the "outlying" years (> 10) The costs skyrocket. The proposed "fix" is NEVER going to save money. Not today, not in 10 years and sure as hell not after 10 years. Here is the graph <http://spectator.org/assets/mc/houseDemHC.jpg> Here is the actual CBO report <http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=324> (pdf here <Http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10430/House_Tri-Committee-Rangel.pdf > This does not save money. Period. > A national economy isn't like balancing the family budget, > more like a business, in which viability of fundamentals is the issue What "business" can stay in business when it's debt exceeds it's income FOREVER. I can answer that. Only a business that can TAKE money from it's customers. If it depends on it's customers willingly paying for it's services then it would fail. If we had to run the US as a business we would have a vastly different government. More along Libertarian lines I guess. > more than how much is in the tin this week. It's not like the tin ever has money in it. Somehow, every year, they take more money out of the tin that was ever put in. They intend to do this forever (left and right..) It's not a matter of IF but when it fails, and how much pain is endured by whom when it happens. It looks like the plan is for my kids to bear the burden. > The US health system is > broken, and a huge drain on the economy in many ways. To lift the > economy, work on fixing the problem. To keep the economy broken, keep > thinking in terms of which important reforms you can avoid paying > for, and which parts of the economy you can leave broken. Perhaps it is not the job of the Federal government to fix the problem. > It is like having an old, broken, car. Sure, spending a whole > lot to get a new car seems like a big expense. But if the new one > costs less to run, doesn't cost you money by breaking down and need > to repaired all the time, doesn't continually interrupt your > opportunities to earn money or otherwise carry on with life etc by > breaking down when you need to get places, etc, then it is cheaper in > the long run to invest in something that works. You are assuming that the new car is better. This isn't something you can easily change again later. You can't say. "damn it, this was a mistake, I want my old clunker back" To follow your analogy, it's like buying a new car that has a 1000 page owners manual, that only a lawyer can read, with the understanding that no matter how good or bad it is, you are stuck with it FOR LIFE and it's going to cost you MORE and MORE forever. Also, that lazy neighbor that hasn't held a job in his life? You and your neighbors are going to help him buy a car JUST LIKE YOURS because he somehow deserves it for being born and you deserve to pay for it, because you have a job. Now that may mean that you can't afford a lexus. Since* everyone* gets a car you, might have to live with a Trebant as that is all you and your neighbors can afford for EVERYONE but tough shit it's for the collective good. (Now that we have Government Motors, you can be sure that it will be a "green" car, even if you need a truck.) But wait, it gets better. The people that write the car manual, actually do get to drive a lexus, since they EXEMPTED themselves from having to live under the 1000 page users manual. Wait. YOU want to be exempted too? Sorry, it just doesn't work that way. > > >> We are supposed to just *believe* that THIS time it will be >> different. > > Well, it probably won't be worse. What are the chances that > you will manage to come up with the worlds least efficient health > system twice? Pretty near 100% since you will have the efficiency of the Federal Government, coupled with the graft and corruption of the Unions all supervised by politicians that are not affected by the system they control. The outcome is preordained to be worse and to be worse for everyone, not just the few that were not covered to start with. =c= _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
