Ah. I see. I think I would be more willing to accept the argument if you could point out the specific failures in the methodology that the think tanks of 30 developed nations believe to be a fair way of interpreting the statistics.
I don't care if every think tank in the world says something, if I don't know what their purpose in saying it is. What's the rubric? How does this scale work? Send me a link, and I'll be more than happy to take a look at it. But as they say, the burden of proof is on the believer: could you at least post a link to the methodology for me? If there is none posted anywhere, then I'm for sure not going to give it much credence.
Like you, I am not a big fan of "fundamental attribution" thinking, although I don't totally discount it in all cases -- certainly I know people whose "personal success" can be attributed to Daddy's contacts and money, but I know some others whose personal success is exactly that. At least one other who started with all the advantages and ended up a bum. And others who tried like hell to make it -- much harder and much smarter than many "successful" folks, by a wide margin -- but just got dealt bad breaks across the line, through no fault of their own. Any permutation of the above can happen. But the typical American viewpoint is "All of my money is mine. Everyone else has to go get their own."
Well my experience, as noted elsewhere in this thread, has been quite the opposite. No insurance? No healthcare. Or, if you get healthcare by, for example, always going to a hospital emergency room in a state where it is illegal to refuse that care, then all you've done is force the hospital to raise costs on the rest of us to stay afloat. In fact, that would be a sort of defacto universal healthcare at everyone else's expense.I thought that was what you wanted. Universal health care for everyone paid for by the people who have the money. Or how were you planning on funding it? :)
Was that snarky or real? It's hard to tell. Oh - sorry, I see the smiley, now. Missed it at first. And no, I'm not being snarky.
Truth is that way of paying for things puts the biggest burdens on hospitals with the most cheaters. Drives up costs and drives down care locally, contributing to the great disparity we have bewtween hospitals in cost and quality. Really not a good thing.
But you knew that.
Public education is a fine example of why I don't want universal healthcare. Have you noticed how children in private schools and those that are schooled at home out perform children in a public school? Would you rather go to Harvard or go to a local public supported community college?
Good school performance heavily correlates with living in a print rich environment at home and with parental involvement in the kid's education, two things that you see a lot of among kids who attend private schools. In the case of parental involvement, the very process of looking for and sending the kid to a private school is more involvement than a lot of kids in the public schools get. Add to that the continual fund-raising that a lot of them do and they can't help but stay closely involved with the kid's education.
Public schools, on the other hand, have to take all comers. Of course that's going to bring their stats down by comparison.
And comparing Harvard with a community college is a pretty loaded comparison. How about comparing Harvard with, oh, say, the University of Wisconsin? Or Purdue? Do I go to Harvard for an engineering degree? Probably not. Both of these public universities will have certain departments better than their counterparts at Harvard. And I guarantee UW or Purdue are a hell of a lot cheaper.
This issue has come up a couple of times, and I don't pretend to know all the facts. But after doing 30 seconds of searching I found this site. Is the problem that there isn't free or affordable prenatal care or is it that there are just women who are not taking advantage of it.But I have a hard time understanding why people are willing to have government spend money on some of the things it spends it on, when 47 million pregnant American women are not receiving pre-natal health care. Why is that not important enough to spend on? What could possibly be more important?
Or are people just willing to say something like, "Well I got mine. Tough luck on those 47 million pregnant women. It's their own damn faults and it ain't coming out of my pocket!"
If you aren't insured, you aren't getting it.
Here's some additional info. I tried to stay nation specific and recent but didn't in the first and last two links. So take those as examples. Basically, poor people can't get prenatal care. Some would argue therefore, they shouldn't.
I don't get what you are saying. All of those talk about that there is care in place for women. One complains that the locations aren't convienent enough, but please what is next going and forcing prenatal care on women? There are safety nets in place for women, if alot are not taking advantage of it that is another issue.
|
This issue has come up a couple of times, and I don't pretend to know all the facts. But after doing 30 seconds of searching I found this site. Is the problem that there isn't free or affordable prenatal care or is it that there are just women who are not taking advantage of it.But I have a hard time understanding why people are willing to have government spend money on some of the things it spends it on, when 47 million pregnant American women are not receiving pre-natal health care. Why is that not important enough to spend on? What could possibly be more important?
Or are people just willing to say something like, "Well I got mine. Tough luck on those 47 million pregnant women. It's their own damn faults and it ain't coming out of my pocket!"
If you aren't insured, you aren't getting it.
Here's some additional info. I tried to stay nation specific and recent but didn't in the first and last two links. So take those as examples. Basically, poor people can't get prenatal care. Some would argue therefore, they shouldn't.
Around thirteen years ago, our first child was conceived a few months after we bought our first insurance policy. The maternity coverage did not have time to kick in.
Despite this, and our very low salary (we were young and poor), The Woman and Children's hospital in Charleston, WV accepted us and gave my wife prenatal care without difficulty. I think somewhere your facts are mistaken.
Ah. I see. I think I would be more willing to accept the argument if you could point out the specific failures in the methodology that the think tanks of 30 developed nations believe to be a fair way of interpreting the statistics.I don't care if every think tank in the world says something, if I don't know what their purpose in saying it is. What's the rubric? How does this scale work? Send me a link, and I'll be more than happy to take a look at it. But as they say, the burden of proof is on the believer: could you at least post a link to the methodology for me? If there is none posted anywhere, then I'm for sure not going to give it much credence.
Like you, I am not a big fan of "fundamental attribution" thinking, although I don't totally discount it in all cases -- certainly I know people whose "personal success" can be attributed to Daddy's contacts and money, but I know some others whose personal success is exactly that. At least one other who started with all the advantages and ended up a bum. And others who tried like hell to make it -- much harder and much smarter than many "successful" folks, by a wide margin -- but just got dealt bad breaks across the line, through no fault of their own. Any permutation of the above can happen. But the typical American viewpoint is "All of my money is mine. Everyone else has to go get their own."
Here you go: oecd health. Haven't looked over the various papers in depth myself yet, just the summaries. But then, I trust the ranking. :) Let me know what you think.
As for the fundamental attribution error, when someone succeeds at something largely on personality, recognizing that is not the Attribution Error. That's just recognizing someone's success.
Let me see if I can illustrate the Error better from recollection: an instance of the error comes with situations when people see a bad thing that happened to a person with whom they can otherwise find no fault, and then conclude that the bad thing must have happened to the person due to a hidden character flaw. Otherwise the bad thing wouldn't have happened.
Here's a decent site with synopsis on various classical demonstrations of how statistically prevalent is this fallacy:
I think it's pretty interesting stuff. Especially given McCain's book lionizing character. Bottom line, of course, is just because a bad thing happened to a person doesn't mean it happened because of some flaw in their character. And by extension that they are somehow less deserving of oh, I don't know, medical care? Than someone else.
Ok. Getting tired and snarky. I think I'm done.
Let me see if I can illustrate the Error better from recollection: an instance of the error comes with situations when people see a bad thing that happened to a person with whom they can otherwise find no fault, and then...
I understand it quite well; sorry if my examples didn't make that clear.
|
|
Well my experience, as noted elsewhere in this thread, has been quite the opposite. No insurance? No healthcare. Or, if you get healthcare by, for example, always going to a hospital emergency room in a state where it is illegal to refuse that care, then all you've done is force the hospital to raise costs on the rest of us to stay afloat. In fact, that would be a sort of defacto universal healthcare at everyone else's expense.I thought that was what you wanted. Universal health care for everyone paid for by the people who have the money. Or how were you planning on funding it? :)
Was that snarky or real? It's hard to tell. Oh - sorry, I see the smiley, now. Missed it at first. And no, I'm not being snarky.
Truth is that way of paying for things puts the biggest burdens on hospitals with the most cheaters. Drives up costs and drives down care locally, contributing to the great disparity we have bewtween hospitals in cost and quality. Really not a good thing.
But you knew that.
I do know that price wise, it's not a good thing. But I fail to see how a national plan to socialize medicine is going to change this. IMO it will simply spread out the suffering.
Personally, speaking as a relatively poor person myself, (for an American - I'm fairly poor but hardly suffering) I'd like to see a deregulation of the insurance industry, and a return to a more free-market medical system. Ideally, I'd like to be able to walk down to the doctor, pay him a few bucks and get a physical. I recognize there are many roadblocks in the way at the moment to this, one of which is the number of lawsuits won against doctors, driving up their costs of business. Another of course is the copious amounts of insurance available to us which make it too easy to spend money at the doctors.
I really am loathe however to have the government step in and mess up a muddled mess even more. Which is what I see socialized medicine doing.
Anyway, just my 2 cents. :)
In alberta wait times for MRI are between 5-20 weeks depending on severity/need.Sorry, I was looking at the GTA. No way my wife would ever consent to move to Calgary, despite the work opportunities I could find there.
Alberta is a province - there are several major centers there other than Calgary... I just want to be clear that if you live in Hobema - you have the same wait time as if you live in Calgary...
Well GTA is the highest concentration of services and facilities in Canada - so I would expect the wait times to be better there than in the sparsely populated west!
I don't get what you are saying. All of those talk about that there is care in place for women. One complains that the locations aren't convienent enough, but please what is next going and forcing prenatal care on women? There are safety nets in place for women, if alot are not taking advantage of it that is another issue.This issue has come up a couple of times, and I don't pretend to know all the facts. But after doing 30 seconds of searching I found this site. Is the problem that there isn't free or affordable prenatal care or is it that there are just women who are not taking advantage of it.But I have a hard time understanding why people are willing to have government spend money on some of the things it spends it on, when 47 million pregnant American women are not receiving pre-natal health care. Why is that not important enough to spend on? What could possibly be more important?
Or are people just willing to say something like, "Well I got mine. Tough luck on those 47 million pregnant women. It's their own damn faults and it ain't coming out of my pocket!"
If you aren't insured, you aren't getting it.
Here's some additional info. I tried to stay nation specific and recent but didn't in the first and last two links. So take those as examples. Basically, poor people can't get prenatal care. Some would argue therefore, they shouldn't.
I'm not saying no one is getting prenatal care. I'm saying, for example, 25% of women in the NC study indicated that their barrier to prenatal care was money or insurance.
I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that free healthcare is out their for anyone who wants it but these pregnant women are just too stupid to take advantage of it?
Here's more:
NJ
Excerpt: Health insurance was the biggest predictor of prenatal care: 96 percent of mothers with health insurance received prenatal care in the first trimester. Teens, however, were least likely to get care no matter what their health insurance status.
This one shows a gap in medicare that had to get fixed by a non-profit
oh - and I need to fess up to an error. It's not 46 million women without prenatal care. I got that wrong. It's 46 million Americans without healthcare coverage.
Alberta is a province - there are several major centers there other than Calgary...
Yes, I know, but if Calgary is too cold for the Mrs., then Edmonton certainly is! Toronto has a higher population density, and the number of MRO machines is greater in absolute terms, but not proportionately.
Let me see if I can illustrate the Error better from recollection: an instance of the error comes with situations when people see a bad thing that happened to a person with whom they can otherwise find no fault, and then...I understand it quite well; sorry if my examples didn't make that clear.
Fair enough. Sorry I misunderstood.
But he's not quoting raw statistics. He's quoting an internationally recognized study jointly conducted by scientists, economists, politicians, etc. -- including American representatives of same -- precisely for the purpose of interpreting statistics and creating a ranking system.A study of this sort is precisely the act that validly transforms statistics into facts, as I understand you to mean that term.
Greg is citing excerpts from this study -- this interpretation of statistics into facts -- as opposed to pointing us to the whole study (good question -- is it available online?). Since, I assume, its probably rather voluminous.
The OECD generally provides rankings online - as well as some portions of their reports on line.
Generally the government (of member countries) provide sections of the reports to the media and through various departments related to the reports.
From my experience while taking a course in comparative systems analysis during my masters - using OECD analysis texts to compare education systems - the whole report is produced as an academic text - 300-500 pages of methodology, statistics and other gathered data as well as recommendations to the country that asked for the analysis.
I do not believe these texts are available online - you can find them in any university library however.
Fair enough. Sorry I misunderstood.
Not at all; I should have been clearer. The problem with seeing both sides of an issue is that everyone automatically thinks you're "against" them.
I don't care if every think tank in the world says something, if I don't know what their purpose in saying it is. What's the rubric? How does this scale work? Send me a link, and I'll be more than happy to take a look at it. But as they say, the burden of proof is on the believer: could you at least post a link to the methodology for me? If there is none posted anywhere, then I'm for sure not going to give it much credence.
Like you, I am not a big fan of "fundamental attribution" thinking, although I don't totally discount it in all cases -- certainly I know people whose "personal success" can be attributed to Daddy's contacts and money, but I know some others whose personal success is exactly that. At least one other who started with all the advantages and ended up a bum. And others who tried like hell to make it -- much harder and much smarter than many "successful" folks, by a wide margin -- but just got dealt bad breaks across the line, through no fault of their own. Any permutation of the above can happen. But the typical American viewpoint is "All of my money is mine. Everyone else has to go get their own."
The OECD is not a think tank.
Its goals are as follows:
OECD brings together the governments of
countries committed to democracy and the
market economy from around the world to:
• Support sustainable economic growth
• Boost employment
• Raise living standards
• Maintain financial stability
• Assist other countries' economic development
• Contribute to growth in world trade
OECD also shares expertise and exchanges
views with more than 100 other countries
and economies, from Brazil, China, and Russia
to the least developed countries in Africa.
Monitoring, analysing and forecasting
For more than 40 years, OECD has been one of the world's largest and most reliable sources of comparable statistics, and economic and social data. As well as collecting data, OECD monitors trends, analyses and forecasts economic developments and researches social changes or evolving patterns in trade, environment, agriculture, technology, taxation and more.
The Organisation provides a setting where governments compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and coordinate domestic and international policies.
http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_36734052_36734103_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
Public education is a fine example of why I don't want universal healthcare. Have you noticed how children in private schools and those that are schooled at home out perform children in a public school? Would you rather go to Harvard or go to a local public supported community college?Good school performance heavily correlates with living in a print rich environment at home and with parental involvement in the kid's education, two things that you see a lot of among kids who attend private schools. In the case of parental involvement, the very process of looking for and sending the kid to a private school is more involvement than a lot of kids in the public schools get. Add to that the continual fund-raising that a lot of them do and they can't help but stay closely involved with the kid's education.
Public schools, on the other hand, have to take all comers. Of course that's going to bring their stats down by comparison.
And comparing Harvard with a community college is a pretty loaded comparison. How about comparing Harvard with, oh, say, the University of Wisconsin? Or Purdue? Do I go to Harvard for an engineering degree? Probably not. Both of these public universities will have certain departments better than their counterparts at Harvard. And I guarantee UW or Purdue are a hell of a lot cheaper.
You're right of course about some of your statements about private schools, but you're also forgetting about the problems involved in certain public schools. Teacher's salaries are poor, facilities are not good, and books are lacking or severely outdated. This is what happens when government tries to ration. This also affects a child's performance as well and leads to public schools falling behind private schools. You're right. Purdue and Wisconsin are great schools and they can outperform a private institution in certain areas. However, overall the private Ivy league schools are going to bury them. Private is usually better, although the price can turn people off.
|
You have what appears to be this kind of odd thing going on. Likely I'm just misunderstanding you, but are you suggesting that if the US decided to pay for everyone's health insurance, instead of the current way the health insurance gets paid, the US would also suddenly begin forcing people to work in specific jobs and slide inevitably into a totalitarian communist state? If that's what you're saying its...well, er...a bit of a leap, no?
It is not what I am suggesting, it is what Gregory Oppedisano has said is a problem with a capitalist system, and thus something that would inevitably be changed with a single source system, be it government or private.
Alberta is a province - there are several major centers there other than Calgary...Yes, I know, but if Calgary is too cold for the Mrs., then Edmonton certainly is! Toronto has a higher population density, and the number of MRO machines is greater in absolute terms, but not proportionately.
Here you go what hospital do you want to go to... oh and the numbers are days (not years :))
St. Joseph's Health Centre (Toronto) Toronto Central 51
Scarborough Hospital ** Special note (Toronto) Central East 62
Rouge Valley Health System ** Special note (Toronto)Central East 65
University Health Network ** Special note (Toronto) Toronto Central 73
Toronto East General Hospital (Toronto) Toronto Central 78
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre ** Special note (Toronto) Toronto Central 79
Mount Sinai Hospital (Toronto) Toronto Central 93
|
|
If you don't agree, I really am curious, specifically, on which grounds you reject the study; and I'm also curious what criteria for fact you are using. Knowing that would help me assemble acceptable evidence.
Simply enough, see Keith's example.
The data is interpreted to a single abstract, not accounting for the various situational factors.That is a very common error to make in such analyses.
You can try all you like to reduce such things to a mathematical formula, but such attempts routinely fall short because they focus too much on the formula and not enough on the function.
It is not what I am suggesting, it is what Gregory Oppedisano has said is a problem with a capitalist system, and thus something that would inevitably be changed with a single source system, be it government or private.
Wow you have really twisted what I said more than once now.
I think it is a waste of health resources to have a system which has surplus of resources devoted to providing boob jobs and cannot provide prenatal care to every woman who is pregnant.
That does not mean that the government decides which job a doctor can do.
|
Except that, according to the OECD itself, they do not track the whole planet, only their member countries. I understand that hyperbole is felt needed at times. Could you please direct me to the statistics, as I am unable to locate them in the OECD report.I teach in the number one jurisdiction in Reading, the number one jurisdiction in Writing, the number three jurisdiction in Mathematics and number three jurisdiction in Science ON THE PLANET (according to the OECD) and guess what - its all public education...
I am not sure what report you mean...
I was reading their 2007 overview of Education, but I could not find ranking for individual subject areas such as math, writing, and reading. All I could find were statistics about graduation rates, performance as it relates to socio-economic factors, etc. I could not locate any place where there was a comparitive ranking bases on individual fields of study. That is why I asked where you found those specific statistics.
|
|
Okay, back to the original topic, a new poll shows McCain now has a 12 point lead with women, which is the group Palin was supposed to bring in.Booo. You're just going to ignore my question?
Which question is that? ;p In all seriousness though, I think it was you that suggested spinning this off into another thread Lou. I really think that a discussion over a single payer health care system is moot at this point sense neither candidate is proposing one. Far better to discuss the things that are on the table then to talk about some hypothetical that America would not support at this point. Just for the sake of refereance, here are the plans on the table:
Barack Obama
Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:
Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.
Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.
Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.
Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.
Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.
Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.
National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.
Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small businesses will be exempt from this requirement, and will receive a new Small Business Health Tax Credit that helps reduce health care costs for small businesses.
Support for Small Businesses: Barack Obama will create a Small Business Health Tax Credit to provide small businesses with a refundable tax credit of up to 50 percent on premiums paid by small businesses on behalf of their employees. This new credit will provide a strong incentive to small businesses to offer high quality health care to their workers and help improve the competitiveness of America’s small businesses.
Mandatory Coverage of Children: Obama will require that all children have health care coverage. Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage, including allowing young people up to age 25 to continue coverage through their parents' plans.
Expansion Of Medicaid and SCHIP: Obama will expand eligibility for the Medicaid and SCHIP programs and ensure that these programs continue to serve their critical safety net function.
Flexibility for State Plans: Due to federal inaction, some states have taken the lead in health care reform. The Obama plan builds on these efforts and does not replace what states are doing. States can continue to experiment, provided they meet the minimum standards of the national plan.
John McCain
Americans Are Worried About Health Care Costs. The problems with health care are well known: it is too expensive and 47 million people living in the United States lack health insurance.
John McCain's Vision for Health Care Reform
John McCain Believes The Key To Health Care Reform Is To Restore Control To The Patients Themselves. We want a system of health care in which everyone can afford and acquire the treatment and preventative care they need. Health care should be available to all and not limited by where you work or how much you make. Families should be in charge of their health care dollars and have more control over care.
Making Health Insurance Innovative, Portable and Affordable
John McCain Will Reform Health Care Making It Easier For Individuals And Families To Obtain Insurance. An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.
John McCain Will Reform The Tax Code To Offer More Choices Beyond Employer-Based Health Insurance Coverage. While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.
John McCain Proposes Making Insurance More Portable. Americans need insurance that follows them from job to job. They want insurance that is still there if they retire early and does not change if they take a few years off to raise the kids.
John McCain Will Encourage And Expand The Benefits Of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) For Families. When families are informed about medical choices, they are more capable of making their own decisions and often decide against unnecessary options. Health Savings Accounts take an important step in the direction of putting families in charge of what they pay for.
A Specific Plan of Action: Ensuring Care for Higher Risk Patients
John McCain's Plan Cares For The Traditionally Uninsurable. John McCain understands that those without prior group coverage and those with pre-existing conditions have the most difficulty on the individual market, and we need to make sure they get the high-quality coverage they need.
John McCain Will Work With States To Establish A Guaranteed Access Plan. As President, John McCain will work with governors to develop a best practice model that states can follow - a Guaranteed Access Plan or GAP - that would reflect the best experience of the states to ensure these patients have access to health coverage. One approach would establish a nonprofit corporation that would contract with insurers to cover patients who have been denied insurance and could join with other state plans to enlarge pools and lower overhead costs. There would be reasonable limits on premiums, and assistance would be available for Americans below a certain income level.
John McCain Will Promote Proper Incentives. John McCain will work with Congress, the governors, and industry to make sure this approach is funded adequately and has the right incentives to reduce costs such as disease management, individual case management, and health and wellness programs.
A Specific Plan of Action: Lowering Health Care Costs
John McCain Proposes A Number Of Initiatives That Can Lower Health Care Costs. If we act today, we can lower health care costs for families through common-sense initiatives. Within a decade, health spending will comprise twenty percent of our economy. This is taking an increasing toll on America's families and small businesses. Even Senators Clinton and Obama recognize the pressure skyrocketing health costs place on small business when they exempt small businesses from their employer mandate plans.
CHEAPER DRUGS: Lowering Drug Prices. John McCain will look to bring greater competition to our drug markets through safe re-importation of drugs and faster introduction of generic drugs.
CHRONIC DISEASE: Providing Quality, Cheaper Care For Chronic Disease. Chronic conditions account for three-quarters of the nation's annual health care bill. By emphasizing prevention, early intervention, healthy habits, new treatment models, new public health infrastructure and the use of information technology, we can reduce health care costs. We should dedicate more federal research to caring and curing chronic disease.
COORDINATED CARE: Promoting Coordinated Care. Coordinated care - with providers collaborating to produce the best health care - offers better outcomes at lower cost. We should pay a single bill for high-quality disease care which will make every single provider accountable and responsive to the patients' needs.
GREATER ACCESS AND CONVENIENCE: Expanding Access To Health Care. Families place a high value on quickly getting simple care. Government should promote greater access through walk-in clinics in retail outlets.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Greater Use Of Information Technology To Reduce Costs. We should promote the rapid deployment of 21st century information systems and technology that allows doctors to practice across state lines.
MEDICAID AND MEDICARE: Reforming The Payment System To Cut Costs. We must reform the payment systems in Medicaid and Medicare to compensate providers for diagnosis, prevention and care coordination. Medicaid and Medicare should not pay for preventable medical errors or mismanagement.
SMOKING: Promoting The Availability Of Smoking Cessation Programs. Most smokers would love to quit but find it hard to do so. Working with business and insurance companies to promote availability, we can improve lives and reduce chronic disease through smoking cessation programs.
STATE FLEXIBILITY: Encouraging States To Lower Costs. States should have the flexibility to experiment with alternative forms of access, coordinated payments per episode covered under Medicaid, use of private insurance in Medicaid, alternative insurance policies and different licensing schemes for providers.
TORT REFORM: Passing Medical Liability Reform. We must pass medical liability reform that eliminates lawsuits directed at doctors who follow clinical guidelines and adhere to safety protocols. Every patient should have access to legal remedies in cases of bad medical practice but that should not be an invitation to endless, frivolous lawsuits.
TRANSPARENCY: Bringing Transparency To Health Care Costs. We must make public more information on treatment options and doctor records, and require transparency regarding medical outcomes, quality of care, costs and prices. We must also facilitate the development of national standards for measuring and recording treatments and outcomes.
Confronting the Long-Term Challenge
John McCain Will Develop A Strategy For Meeting The Challenge Of A Population Needing Greater Long-Term Care. There have been a variety of state-based experiments such as Cash and Counseling or The Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) that are pioneering approaches for delivering care to people in a home setting. Seniors are given a monthly stipend which they can use to hire workers and purchase care-related services and goods. They can get help managing their care by designating representatives, such as relatives or friends, to help make decisions. It also offers counseling and bookkeeping services to assist consumers in handling their programmatic responsibilities.
Setting the Record Straight: Covering Those With Pre-Existing Conditions
MYTH: Some Claim That Under John McCain's Plan, Those With Pre-Existing Conditions Would Be Denied Insurance.
FACT: John McCain Supported The Health Insurance Portability And Accountability Act In 1996 That Took The Important Step Of Providing Some Protection Against Exclusion Of Pre-Existing Conditions.
FACT: Nothing In John McCain's Plan Changes The Fact That If You Are Employed And Insured You Will Build Protection Against The Cost Of Any Pre-Existing Condition.
FACT: As President, John McCain Would Work With Governors To Find The Solutions Necessary To Ensure Those With Pre-Existing Conditions Are Able To Easily Access Care.
Combating Autism in America
John McCain is very concerned about the rising incidence of autism among America's children and has continually supported research into its causes and treatment.
I was reading their 2007 overview of Education, but I could not find ranking for individual subject areas such as math, writing, and reading. All I could find were statistics about graduation rates, performance as it relates to socio-economic factors, etc. I could not locate any place where there was a comparitive ranking bases on individual fields of study. That is why I asked where you found those specific statistics.Except that, according to the OECD itself, they do not track the whole planet, only their member countries. I understand that hyperbole is felt needed at times. Could you please direct me to the statistics, as I am unable to locate them in the OECD report.I teach in the number one jurisdiction in Reading, the number one jurisdiction in Writing, the number three jurisdiction in Mathematics and number three jurisdiction in Science ON THE PLANET (according to the OECD) and guess what - its all public education...
I am not sure what report you mean...
I am not sure about the PISA documents from 2007... I think PISA is tested every three years 2000, 2003, 2006.
I participated in the study in 2000 - published in 2003 - that is the one I was quoting because I am very familiar with the results... here is a summary:
Alberta students show strong results on international tests
Edmonton... Alberta students continue to achieve excellent results on international tests, sharing the highest scores in reading, improving from third to second in mathematics and ranking fourth in science. The results are from the 2003 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), administered by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
"These test results confirm that Alberta students are among the best in the world," said Minister of Education, Gene Zwozdesky. "I am very proud of their achievements which demonstrate that students benefit from our province's excellent teachers, high-quality centralized curriculum, outstanding learning and teaching resources, and standardized assessment program."
PISA is administered every three years and assesses the international achievement of 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics and science. In Alberta, over 2,400 students from
120 schools participated in the test. Alberta is the only province whose average scores are significantly higher than the Canadian average in every area tested.
"Participating in international testing is an important component of our learning system," said Zwozdesky. "It gives Albertans the chance to see how well our students are doing in relation to other students around the world."
In 2000, Alberta students scored the highest of all participants on the reading component of the PISA tests. Alberta students had the third highest rankings in science (behind Korea and Japan) and mathematics (behind Japan and Quebec). In 2000, the tests focused on reading and literacy. PISA 2003 focused on mathematics and a new content area called problem-solving skills. Problem-solving questions test a student's ability to solve real-life situations requiring more than one subject area, such as using a map to calculate the shortest distance between two routes.
A copy of the Canadian results published in Measuring up: Canadian Results of the OECD
PISA 2003 Study is available from the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada at www.cmec.ca. For more information on PISA, visit www.pisa.oecd.org.
I will look for data on the 2007 study and get back to you!
|
|
Wow you have really twisted what I said more than once now.
I think it is a waste of health resources to have a system which has surplus of resources devoted to providing boob jobs and cannot provide prenatal care to every woman who is pregnant.
That does not mean that the government decides which job a doctor can do.
It is that what you said is twisted that causes the problems.
You are the one who has proclaimed a moral imperative in the providing of health care.
You are the one who has proclaimed a government imperative to do the providing.
You are the one who has proclaimed, and confirmed here, the failure of a system that does not apportion providers according to need.
It is no big jump to unite the moral imperative with the government imperative with the failure (assigned by you) and come up with a "solution" of government mandated assignments.
I understand why you would not want to have to acknowledge the inevitability of such, but that is precisely where the system you have described will end up, particularly with the moral imperative added to it.
That is the problem with moralistic dialectics. Once you add that factor, any excess becomes not merely tolerated, but mandated.
|
|
Well it looks like the latest storm track on Hurricane Ike has it headed for Texas. The report I just saw says that the governer is considering manditory evacuations of the southern part of the state. Kith, Dereck and the rest of you Texans, I hope you're not affected. If you are then I hope you let us know you're alright soon.
|
|
Alberta students show strong results on international tests
Are you in Edmonton? I have relatives that live up that way. Not the uncle I mentioned earlier, a different branch of the family. Of course my family is scattered all over Canada. We had to relocate there after my family picked the losing side of the American Revolution.
I'm not saying no one is getting prenatal care. I'm saying, for example, 25% of women in the NC study indicated that their barrier to prenatal care was money or insurance.
Yes, the women in that study indicated that they BELIEVED that not having money or insurance was a barrier. Was it really? Who can say because the source you supplied did not go into that.
I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that free healthcare is out their for anyone who wants it but these pregnant women are just too stupid to take advantage of it?
Too stupid? Not necessarily. I mean there may be some that are, but I wouldn't think that is the only reason. Some just are ignorant of the programs out there that can help. Some may not have access to information like the internet and so can't do that 30 sec search I did. Also some might naively believe what people like yourself say, that there is not help for them. If they are told that enough, they believe and don't go looking for additional aid.
Here's more:
NJ
Excerpt: Health insurance was the biggest predictor of prenatal care: 96 percent of mothers with health insurance received prenatal care in the first trimester. Teens, however, were least likely to get care no matter what their health insurance status.
And? That doesn't prove jack or squat, and jack just left. All that shows is that if a woman has insurance she is more likely to get prenatal care. That doesn't mean that women who don't have insurance aren't getting it or can't get it. Again, are those other women seeking it or not? We can't tell because your link does not address that in the least.
This one shows a gap in medicare that had to get fixed by a non-profit
Yup, there is both government and private organizations that are helping women with prenatal care. Again, women have options to get prenatal care, maybe some people should spend less time telling poor and less educated women that "rich" folk want them to go with out and more time pointing them to things that can actually help them. But then we can't feel superior to them if we do that now can we.
Well it looks like the latest storm track on Hurricane Ike has it headed for Texas. The report I just saw says that the governer is considering manditory evacuations of the southern part of the state. Kith, Dereck and the rest of you Texans, I hope you're not affected. If you are then I hope you let us know you're alright soon.
Thanks, David. The official track has it making landfall south of here on the weekend, but we're well within the cone of possibility. I'll be keeping an eye on it.
Are you in Edmonton? I have relatives that live up that way. Not the uncle I mentioned earlier, a different branch of the family. Of course my family is scattered all over Canada. We had to relocate there after my family picked the losing side of the American Revolution.Alberta students show strong results on international tests
I am a little farther north than that... in Grande Prairie. I live in the middle of the Canadian oil and natural gas patch... home of the $18 an hour subway sandwich artist job... land of CO2 emmissions... the one place on earth where global warming looks like a good idea!
Here you go what hospital do you want to go to... oh and the numbers are days (not years :))
St. Joseph's Health Centre (Toronto) Toronto Central 51
I know St. Jospeh's; I stayed not far from there last time I was in town, I think.
In contrast, though, I needed an MRI here in Houston this spring. Wait time (for the machine nearest my home) -- 2 days.
|
|
Are you in Edmonton? I have relatives that live up that way. Not the uncle I mentioned earlier, a different branch of the family. Of course my family is scattered all over Canada. We had to relocate there after my family picked the losing side of the American Revolution.Alberta students show strong results on international tests
I am a little farther north than that... in Grande Prairie. I live in the middle of the Canadian oil and natural gas patch... home of the $18 an hour subway sandwich artist job... land of CO2 emmissions... the one place on earth where global warming looks like a good idea!
I've always had a perverse desire to live in Yellowknife. I can't convince the wife and kids to move there though.
The OECD is not a think tank. Its goals are as follows
But what it isn't, and a bunch of vague goal statements, in no way tell me what weight they attach to which factors when they make their rankings. Does wait time for emergencies count 5 times as much as number of doctors per capita? Half as much? Does the number of specialists compared to the number of GPs get factored in? What about percent rate of luekemia survivors? There are a bewilderingly vast number of factors that can all be considered, and without knowing what relative weight these factors receive, if any, a cumulative ranking is meaningless.
It is that what you said is twisted that causes the problems.
You are the one who has proclaimed a moral imperative in the providing of health care.
You are the one who has proclaimed a government imperative to do the providing.
You are the one who has proclaimed, and confirmed here, the failure of a system that does not apportion providers according to need.It is no big jump to unite the moral imperative with the government imperative with the failure (assigned by you) and come up with a "solution" of government mandated assignments.
I understand why you would not want to have to acknowledge the inevitability of such, but that is precisely where the system you have described will end up, particularly with the moral imperative added to it.
That is the problem with moralistic dialectics. Once you add that factor, any excess becomes not merely tolerated, but mandated.
Yay! libertarian talking points!
I imagine that if you polled people you would find that most people think prenatal care is more important than boob jobs.
Some people because they are pregnant
Some people because they care about their neighbors
Some people because jesus told them too
some people because they can think clearly because they do not read libertarian websites
Some people because they have morals
Some people because the answer is obvious
Some people because they are pinko communists
The point is market fundamentalism is amoral and profit without perceived consequence twists values.
I think you have made the point better than I ever could and so I thank you.
Which question is that?Okay, back to the original topic, a new poll shows McCain now has a 12 point lead with women, which is the group Palin was supposed to bring in.Booo. You're just going to ignore my question?
Sorry David, I meant this question. Spoiler for length.
Also the notion seems to have currency in this discussion that if one could prove a system like Canada's doesn't work as well as some claim (not that I happen to agree), that that is somehow a refutation sufficient to put paid to any such notion in America. That line of reasoning doesn't strike me as valid either.
As I've said before, it also doesn't matter to me so much how healthcare (or sickness care, the distinction right this second for my point is irrelevant) gets delivered -- provided the devlivery is of acceptable quality -- the question for me is who pays for it.
Arguments that "it" will be too expensive or lack quality don't wash for me right now, because there is no specific "it" -- a defined plan to provide all Americans access to quality healthcare -- on the table to judge the expensiveness or quality thereof. Also such arguments simply suggest to me that we need to exert effort to make sure the quality is good and the cost acceptable. I don't believe that Americans are so lost to good old American ingenuity that its just beyond our abilities as a nation to make quality healthcare available to all Americans for free or for very cheap. I believe America is capable of solving those operational and workability problems. I believe we as a nation have what it takes -- if we want to do it.
No. What I want to figure out is something like this: most of us accept that the governemtn, local or federal or both, pays for a bunch of stuff we use. Fire departments, police departments, roads, clean water, public education, the FBI, the EPA, in NYC the DEP, the DOB, etc. etc. Even some who would argue government shouldn't pay for things like roads, drive to work on them.
Most of us would probably agree that the US gov't shouldn't use its tax money to buy all of us extra television sets, frilly soap, or a new car. Especially not to buy, say, perfume, for people who can't afford it.
My question is this: why do we, as a nation, seem to want to put basic medical care in the same basket with televisions, cars, soap or perfume and not in the same basket with fire departments, roads, police departments, clean water, and public education, etc.?
My belief is that we can, and we should. How precisely to achieve such a goal is a different question, entirely.
But I have a hard time understanding why people are willing to have government spend money on some of the things it spends it on, when 47 million pregnant American women are not receiving pre-natal health care. Why is that not important enough to spend on? What could possibly be more important?
Or are people just willing to say something like, "Well I got mine. Tough luck on those 47 million pregnant women. It's their own damn faults and it ain't coming out of my pocket!"
I mean, I REALLY don't get it why so many people seem so invested in not having government ensure that we are all insured.
Is it really just fear that whatever new system emerges will somehow mean less for specific individuals?
What's up with this?
The OECD is not a think tank. Its goals are as followsBut what it isn't, and a bunch of vague goal statements, in no way tell me what weight they attach to which factors when they make their rankings. Does wait time for emergencies count 5 times as much as number of doctors per capita? Half as much? Does the number of specialists compared to the number of GPs get factored in? What about percent rate of luekemia survivors? There are a bewilderingly vast number of factors that can all be considered, and without knowing what relative weight these factors receive, if any, a cumulative ranking is meaningless.
You said you didn't trust think tanks... and wanted to know the rational behind the organization...
And this is not just you but...
I agree with Lou. How do you argue with someone who uses anecdotes. Is so rigidly locked into an ideology that they deny the *existance* of facts that do not support their position and rejects the OECD data without even knowing what the OECD is.
Thinking that you have some better understanding of the comparative analysis of national systems of governance than the OECD is really sad - who do you think you are?
Why do you suppose the governments of the 30 developed nations, that employ the international expert panels of the OECD to make determinations and give recommendations on how their systems work, have not thought to just give you a call and ask you what you think...
Your position would be laughed out of any serious discussion of policy in any major corporation, government body, academic setting...
I am really trying to be polite and understanding.
I've always had a perverse desire to live in Yellowknife. I can't convince the wife and kids to move there though.
Where are you from?
Yellowknife is a pretty big culture shock if you have never lived in a remote community before.
The Canadian north is a literal gold mine of resource industry jobs, consulting and service companies, and major mining operators.
Wages are high, taxes low, housing scarce, and its cold as a mother f*@*er...
Here you go what hospital do you want to go to... oh and the numbers are days (not years :))
St. Joseph's Health Centre (Toronto) Toronto Central 51I know St. Jospeh's; I stayed not far from there last time I was in town, I think.
In contrast, though, I needed an MRI here in Houston this spring. Wait time (for the machine nearest my home) -- 2 days.
There is no doubt that there are a lot more MRIs, CAT scans etc in the USA... more than anywhere in the world i would imagine (though I am not sure).
Canada definitely scores poorly in this area in OECD studies.
This is one of the reasos we are ranked 30th.
Not a great ranking either I will add again...
I think we should look to Italy and France to improve our systems - they dramatically out perform both of our systems.
I'm not saying no one is getting prenatal care. I'm saying, for example, 25% of women in the NC study indicated that their barrier to prenatal care was money or insurance.Yes, the women in that study indicated that they BELIEVED that not having money or insurance was a barrier. Was it really? Who can say because the source you supplied did not go into that.
I don't get what you are saying. Are you saying that free healthcare is out their for anyone who wants it but these pregnant women are just too stupid to take advantage of it?Too stupid? Not necessarily. I mean there may be some that are, but I wouldn't think that is the only reason. Some just are ignorant of the programs out there that can help. Some may not have access to information like the internet and so can't do that 30 sec search I did. Also some might naively believe what people like yourself say, that there is not help for them. If they are told that enough, they believe and don't go looking for additional aid.
Here's more:
NJ
Excerpt: Health insurance was the biggest predictor of prenatal care: 96 percent of mothers with health insurance received prenatal care in the first trimester. Teens, however, were least likely to get care no matter what their health insurance status.And? That doesn't prove jack or squat, and jack just left. All that shows is that if a woman has insurance she is more likely to get prenatal care. That doesn't mean that women who don't have insurance aren't getting it or can't get it. Again, are those other women seeking it or not? We can't tell because your link does not address that in the least.
This one shows a gap in medicare that had to get fixed by a non-profitYup, there is both government and private organizations that are helping women with prenatal care. Again, women have options to get prenatal care, maybe some people should spend less time telling poor and less educated women that "rich"...
The NJ article is about the fact that less women care getting the prenatal healthcare they need and the biggest predictive factor is whether they have health insurance.
But I guess you're right then. Of the 46 odd million Americans who have no health insurance, none of them is a pregnant women. Things are fine. There's no problem.
Please note: that was sarcasm. As was this into infinite regress.
|
|
Yay! libertarian talking points!
Unfortunately for your theory, I am not a Libertarian.
Thus you demonstrate you are exactly what you complain about - a dialectician looking to blame the "evil" Libertarians for anything and everything, and rejecting any analysis that does match what your political dialectic has defined for you.
What is more unfortunate is that your tunnel vision makes you incapable of knowing that the moral aspects of the profit motive were defined by Adam Smith even as he defined capitalism, and well before Marx showed up to provide your worldview of forcible redistribution of wealth to achieve a pseudo-equality of the least common denominator.
I would thank you for making that point so well, but it is really superfluous, as it was already blatantly obvious.
Yes, the women in that study indicated that they BELIEVED that not having money or insurance was a barrier. Was it really? Who can say because the source you supplied did not go into that.
...Too stupid? Not necessarily. I mean there may be some that are, but I wouldn't think that is the only reason. Some just are ignorant of the programs out there that can help. Some may not have access to information like the internet and so can't do that 30 sec search I did. Also some might naively believe what people like yourself say, that there is not help for them. If they are told that enough, they believe and don't go looking for additional aid.
...And? That doesn't prove jack or squat, and jack just left. All that shows is that if a woman has insurance she is more likely to get prenatal care. That doesn't mean that women who don't have insurance aren't getting it or can't get it. Again, are those other women seeking it or not? We can't tell because your link does not address that in the least.
...Yup, there is both government and private organizations that are helping women with prenatal care. Again, women have options to get prenatal care, maybe some people should spend less time telling poor and less educated...
I did some more thinking and digging on this one, and I have to come around to an agreement with you. The 46million number was about uninsured Americans, and I cannot get accurate numbers on pregnant women without healthcare. I can find facts saying that 18% of women in the U.S. don't have healthcare. I can get facts stating that 1 in 4 women say they can't afford their healthcare bills. And I can find facts saying that of pregnant women surveyed, 25% claim they can't get prenatal care because of costs. But I can't figure out exactly how many of the women not getting prenatal care are not getting it because of costs, since, you're right, they could all be wrong about their finances and what they can afford.
So, I'd like to substitute into my argument what a shame it is that 8.7 million children are uninsured. I think that's bad enough, don't you?
Oh, and that an advocacy group maintains that 1,839 children are born without health insurance every day. I'm assuming, but can't prove, that most of their mothers didn't discontinue health insurance coverage just after they were born and so didn't have health insurance for prenatal care. That would get us 671,235 pregnant mothers without healthcare per year. But they are just an advocacy group, and who can trust those people, right? Also, they might all have discontinued their health insurance right after they children were born, who knows, right?
But I like these sources:
National Coalition on Healthcare
Wow. Just noticed the time. I am so going to miss my adventure deadline because I got addicted to this thread! Shame on me.
Yay! libertarian talking points!Unfortunately for your theory, I am not a Libertarian.
Thus you demonstrate you are exactly what you complain about - a dialectician looking to blame the "evil" Libertarians for anything and everything, and rejecting any analysis that does match what your political dialectic has defined for you.
What is more unfortunate is that your tunnel vision makes you incapable of knowing that the moral aspects of the profit motive were defined by Adam Smith even as he defined capitalism, and well before Marx showed up to provide your worldview of forcible redistribution of wealth to achieve a pseudo-equality of the least common denominator.
I would thank you for making that point so well, but it is really superfluous, as it was already blatantly obvious.
Um...so why is it again that you think the US should not pay for the health insurance of 8.7 million uninsured American children? What would be wrong with that, in your view, precisely?
Unfortunately for your theory, I am not a Libertarian.
Oooh! Can I play the hair-splitting game too?
I don't think he said you were a libertarian. He said you were speaking in libertarian talking points.
Hairs: 0
Sebastian: 1
Rah! Rah! Sisboomba! Goooooo Sebastian! :)
|
what I love is that someone will shout down any person who believes in free market balancing the health care system instead of the government points to statistics that say Canada's system is better, I am not even denying that nor have I ever. My point is that the government in our system is so fundamentally foobared that I'd rather trust the vagaries of the free market system, which opens up more opportunity to "make it" even if it comes with higher risk if you fail, than to trust the beaureucratic mess that is our government.
go ahead yell libertarian talking points all you want.
And to bring this discussion back on track, after reading the two plans for healthcare did anyone else look at Obama's plan and see a plan and look at McCains plan and see a bunch of tax cuts to increase competition? I mean between the two I still prefer McCain/Palin. But when I look at the healthcare plans I actually feel like Obama's could work and McCain's just is too open to passing the buck when nothing changes.
Then I think yeah it will work like most government programs work, it will go strong for 20-30 years and then as the economy and world markets change it will start to fall increasingly behind to the point where in 50-75 years we'll have to create major reform or else the program will be broke within x years, and while the powers that be clamor for fixes utlimately the program which is no longer effective will continue to bankrupt while party politics prevent any reliable reform. YAY I fix my problem to screw over my grandkids.
Sorry Canada is so wonderful that everything magically works better and you don't have to worry about things like that. I'll just keep screaming my libertarian talking points.
The NJ article is about the fact that less women care getting the prenatal healthcare they need and the biggest predictive factor is whether they have health insurance.
Very good. Now why is that happening? Because uninsuranced women are being denied prenatal care? I see a correlation, I am waiting for proof of a causation. You just keep repeating the correlation. Maybe the reason why uninsured women are not getting as much prenatal care (per capita) is because they are 1)less educated, 2)don't know about programs out there to aid them, 3)are being told by people like yourself that there are not programs out there to aid them. Or maybe health clinics and such are not giving them aid. How about before we start jumping the "rich folk hate poor folk" bandwagon we find out first?
But I guess you're right then. Of the 46 odd million Americans who have no health insurance, none of them is a pregnant women. Things are fine. There's no problem.
Please note: that was sarcasm. As was this into infinite regress.
I see, because you can't understand the difference between correlation and causation you retreat to sarcasm.
I did some more thinking and digging on this one, and I have to come around to an agreement with you. The 46million number was about uninsured Americans, and I cannot get accurate numbers on pregnant women without healthcare. I can find facts saying that 18% of women in the U.S. don't have healthcare. I can get facts stating that 1 in 4 women say they can't afford their healthcare bills. And I can find facts saying that of pregnant women surveyed, 25% claim they can't get prenatal care because of costs. But I can't figure out exactly how many of the women not getting prenatal care are not getting it because of costs, since, you're right, they could all be wrong about their finances and what they can afford.
So, I'd like to substitute into my argument what a shame it is that 8.7 million children are uninsured. I think that's bad enough, don't you?
Oh, and that an advocacy group maintains that 1,839 children are born without health insurance every day. I'm assuming, but can't prove, that most of their mothers didn't discontinue health insurance coverage just after they were born and so didn't have health insurance for prenatal care. That would get us 671,235 pregnant mothers without healthcare per year. But they are just an advocacy group, and who can trust those people, right? Also, they might all have discontinued their health insurance right after they children were born, who knows, right?
But I like these sources:
National Coalition on Healthcare
Reform Matters
US Census 2006
Children's Defense Fund
Wow. Just noticed the time. I am so going to miss my adventure deadline because I got addicted to this thread! Shame on me.
So your argument is because there are women (and children) that don't have insurance those same women (and children) are not getting any health care, especially prenatal care? Yet as most of the links you posted, as well as the one I posted show that is not the case. Those women who don't have insurance can still get prenatal care. Thus your logic (No insurance -> no prenatal care) fails.
The NJ article is about the fact that less women care getting the prenatal healthcare they need and the biggest predictive factor is whether they have health insurance.Very good. Now why is that happening? Because uninsuranced women are being denied prenatal care? I see a correlation, I am waiting for proof of a causation. You just keep repeating the correlation. Maybe the reason why uninsured women are not getting as much prenatal care (per capita) is because they are 1)less educated, 2)don't know about programs out there to aid them, 3)are being told by people like yourself that there are not programs out there to aid them. Or maybe health clinics and such are not giving them aid. How about before we start jumping the "rich folk hate poor folk" bandwagon we find out first?
I see, because you can't understand the difference between correlation and causation you retreat to sarcasm.But I guess you're right then. Of the 46 odd million Americans who have no health insurance, none of them is a pregnant women. Things are fine. There's no problem.
Please note: that was sarcasm. As was this into infinite regress.
What on earth makes you think I don't understand the difference? And why on earth would you take my levity as a reason to be insulting?
What on earth makes you think I don't understand the difference? And why on earth would you take my levity as a reason to be insulting?
LOL, because comments like:
But I guess you're right then. Of the 46 odd million Americans who have no health insurance, none of them is a pregnant women. Things are fine. There's no problem.
are not insulting.
"levity"? Perhaps you need to look back at the definition of sarcasm:
sarcasm
1: a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
2 a: a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual b: the use or language of sarcasm
Sounds kind of insulting, doesn't it?
As for why I think you probably don't understand the difference between correlation and causation, well you keep pointing to something that says that women with insurance are more likely to get prenatal care and keep trying to make that imply that women without insurance can not get prenatal care. There is no evidence that you have present that justifies that claim. All you can say is that the probability someone gets prenatal care is higher if they also have insurance. Maybe people with insurance are more likely to be knowledge about the need of prenatal care. Maybe they are more likely to speak to a medical professional about the need for prenatal care prior to becoming pregnant. We just can't tell with what you have given us, are we can tell is correlations not causations.
So your argument is because there are women (and children) that don't have insurance those same women (and children) are not getting any health care, especially prenatal care? Yet as most of the links you posted, as well as the one I posted show that is not the case. Those women who don't have insurance can still get prenatal care. Thus your...I did some more thinking and digging on this one, and I have to come around to an agreement with you. The 46million number was about uninsured Americans, and I cannot get accurate numbers on pregnant women without healthcare. I can find facts saying that 18% of women in the U.S. don't have healthcare. I can get facts stating that 1 in 4 women say they can't afford their healthcare bills. And I can find facts saying that of pregnant women surveyed, 25% claim they can't get prenatal care because of costs. But I can't figure out exactly how many of the women not getting prenatal care are not getting it because of costs, since, you're right, they could all be wrong about their finances and what they can afford.
So, I'd like to substitute into my argument what a shame it is that 8.7 million children are uninsured. I think that's bad enough, don't you?
Oh, and that an advocacy group maintains that 1,839 children are born without health insurance every day. I'm assuming, but can't prove, that most of their mothers didn't discontinue health insurance coverage just after they were born and so didn't have health insurance for prenatal care. That would get us 671,235 pregnant mothers without healthcare per year. But they are just an advocacy group, and who can trust those people, right? Also, they might all have discontinued their health insurance right after they children were born, who knows, right?
But I like these sources:
National Coalition on Healthcare
Reform Matters
US Census 2006
Children's Defense Fund
Wow. Just noticed the time. I am so going to miss my adventure deadline because I got addicted to this thread! Shame on me.
WTF? Dude. I think you've really lost the thread of things here. I suggested that it is a travesty that in America large numbers of pregnant women are without healthcare, prenatally.
You challenged the validity of that statement based on lack of adequate source material. I've come around and agreed that the source materials I can find don't support exact numbers for pregnant women without healthcare. They simply speak to the fact that many pregnant women do not get healthcare, not proving why they don't get it.
You also now seem to be arguing that because supplementary programs and charities exist to help uninsured pregnant women, it somehow follows that all uninsured pregnant women get the healthcare they need. That really doesn't follow either, and is off the original point, I think.
So, I've retracted and am instead suggesting it is a travesty that in America 8.7 million children are without healthcare coverage.
Do you actually mean to argue that with 8.7 million children without adequate healthcare coverage, everything is hunky dory? Or do you think the census data is wrong? Or the other statistics surrounding the failure of our healthcare system to provide for Americans are wrong?
Or maybe you do feel that 8.7 million children without adequate healthcare coverage is ok and not your problem? That's a genuine question without sarcasm.