[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Why is the premature birth rate so high in the U.S. as compared to other countries?[/quote]
That’s a great question; however, it still has nothing to do with healthcare. [/quote]
[/quote]
Sounds good, to bad it’s all just that persons opinion. The auhtor even uses the word, “theory.”
Birth control is a contributing factor to premature birth, huh? Oh if, “free,” birth control was given out like in super sweet Europe premature birth would go down.
"What Can I Do?
There are things that women can do to improve their health, lower the risk of having a premature baby, and help their baby be healthy. These includeâ??
â?¢Quit smoking and avoid alcohol or drugs.
â?¢See your health care provider for a medical checkup before pregnancy. Get prenatal care as soon as you think you may be pregnant, and throughout your pregnancy.
â?¢Talk to your health care provider aboutâ??
â?¦How to best control diseases such as high blood pressure or diabetes.
â?¦A healthy diet and prenatal vitamins. It is important to take 400 micrograms of folic acid daily before and during early pregnancy.
â?¦Concerns about pregnancy and any warning signs or symptoms of preterm labor that will need medical attention.
â?¦The use of 17 alpha hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) if you had a previous preterm birth.
â?¦Breastfeeding. Breast milk is the best food for babies, whether they are born early or at term.
Like I said, maybe how fat we are is a BIG part of the picture.
Afghanistan & Burundi are just two examples of poor nations that have less premature births than Amercia, so I doubt poverty is the #1 cause.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
Why is the premature birth rate so high in the U.S. as compared to other countries?[/quote]
That’s a great question; however, it still has nothing to do with healthcare. [/quote]
[/quote]
Sounds good, to bad it’s all just that persons opinion. The auhtor even uses the word, “theory.”
Birth control is a contributing factor to premature birth, huh? Oh if, “free,” birth control was given out like in super sweet Europe premature birth would go down.
"What Can I Do?
There are things that women can do to improve their health, lower the risk of having a premature baby, and help their baby be healthy. These includeâ??
â?¢Quit smoking and avoid alcohol or drugs.
â?¢See your health care provider for a medical checkup before pregnancy. Get prenatal care as soon as you think you may be pregnant, and throughout your pregnancy.
â?¢Talk to your health care provider aboutâ??
â?¦How to best control diseases such as high blood pressure or diabetes.
â?¦A healthy diet and prenatal vitamins. It is important to take 400 micrograms of folic acid daily before and during early pregnancy.
â?¦Concerns about pregnancy and any warning signs or symptoms of preterm labor that will need medical attention.
â?¦The use of 17 alpha hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) if you had a previous preterm birth.
â?¦Breastfeeding. Breast milk is the best food for babies, whether they are born early or at term.
Like I said, maybe how fat we are is a BIG part of the picture.
Afghanistan & Burundi are just two examples of poor nations that have less premature births than Amercia, so I doubt poverty is the #1 cause. [/quote]
There is always an excuse. However, the fact remains that other countries who have a nationalized healthcare have fare less premature deaths. So instead of going with the overwhelming evidence you have to bring up questions as if this changes the facts. But you have to do this to keep the free-market fantasy alive.
I never even said I was against nationalized healthcare.
If poverty is a reason why our premature birth rate is worse how do Afghanistan & Burundi have better rates?
If black people in the U.S. have worse premature rates why does a place like Niger have a better rate?
you know wisegeek is not controlled by a business, so it has to be right. The CDC is controlled by the government and March of Dimes gets a lot of contributions from corporations…/sarcasm.
you have failed to give an answer as to why government run sectors of healthcare in this country operate more efficiently than the private sector.[/quote]
This is useless because you are completely dislodged from the reality we all live in, but I am going to ask once:
How do you define “efficiency” in the context of what I just quoted you as saying? Specifically. I want details. What is the measure or are the measures of the efficiency of which you speak, within the context you are speaking? Name all that apply. [/quote]
Cost is a major issue. The fact that the U.S. pays about twice as much as the rest of the world and it is the major cause of BK in this country. You think this is a system that needs to be emulated? Why aren’t the populations of other countries clamouring for U.S. style healthcare?[/quote]
You restated talking points. You did not answer the question–you have already said cost is a problem several times and you have already said the U.S. pays more than twice as much as the rest of the world several times. I asked for ways you personally measure and define “efficiency” because you have made a claim that the “government run sectors of healthcare operate more efficiently than the private ones”
You simply took what you have already said and said it again. You did not offer any measurements of efficiency that you compare from public to private sectors. You did not offer any metrics at all by which you personally judge operating efficiency between the two nor did you define measures that you consider reliable. This was the same problem when I asked for news sources you considered reliable–you had no answer other than “non corporate owned”. I was asking for examples then and I am asking for metrics now.
I also made no comments on emulating this system you speak of. In fact, I made no comments on the healthcare in this country AT ALL, I only asked you a question, hoping you would actually answer it instead of dodge the difficulty.
I am not going to bother casting pearls before swine by answering your insulting “comeback question” if you cannot put forth a cogent argument to the question I asked you. It is a waste of my time. So cowboy the fuck up or stop wasting our time if you’re going to regurgitate talking points with less than a surface understanding of the issue.
Measures of efficiency you consider reliable for judging efficiency between private and public sectors of healthcare in THIS country, ready…Go.[/quote]
cost efficiencies between the 2 since cost is what I have brought up.
Which cost efficiency category are you talking about? That is one of the questions I have been trying to drive at. How are those costs measured, and is that an accurate way of measuring said costs? Those are two other questions I have been trying to drive at.
The last link you gave is irrelevant for two reasons: 1st, I am responding to a claim you made about this country comparing public to private, not this country to other countries. That is what the second link is talking about. 2nd, that second article includes the public sector as well as the private sector for U.S. healthcare vs. the world so it does NOT make the case that the publicly funded portion of the U.S. healthcare system is performing better on health related outcomes than the private sector of U.S. healthcare compared with the rest of the world. It does not compare the performance of the two sectors separately, which is necessary to support your point.
And finally the second article you linked points specifically to some of the problems people have been trying to get you to see: That it is not the health care system itself but the poor lifestyle and dietary habits of this country that is a very large chunk of the reason for high healthcare costs. Note that I refrained from saying “all the higher costs”. However, this is NOT indicative of a problem with the healthcare system performing its function of diagnosis, treatment, medication, or hospitalization. Poor dietary and lifestyle habits will drive up costs with ANY country and ANY healthcare system regardless of funding source. And the U.S. has remarkably worse dietary habits and lifestyle choices than most other developed countries.
From the 2nd article: “Given the vast number of preventable deaths associated with smoking (465,000 per year), hypertension (395,000), obesity (216,000), physical inactivity (191,000), high blood glucose levels (190,000), high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (113,000), and other dietary risk factors, there are huge opportunities to enact policies that could make a substantial difference in health system performance â?? and in the population’s health.4 More investments that are targeted at promoting proven strategies â?? including tobacco taxation and smoking-cessation programs, screening and treatment for high cholesterol and blood pressure, banning of trans fat, creating incentives for people to engage in physical activity, and subsidizing the cost of consumption of nâ??3 fatty acids â?? could dramatically reduce mortality and enhance the performance of the U.S. health care system.”
Only one of the policies that the author advocates as potential solutions to bring the poor lifestyle and dietary habits under control is a healthcare system based one (screening/treatment for high cholesterol and blood pressure, which is already being done anyways so it is a moot point). The others are legislative in nature–i.e. Congressional, not doctoral–and are not and have never been included under the “healthcare system” umbrella term. They are laws not public health care operations.
you have failed to give an answer as to why government run sectors of healthcare in this country operate more efficiently than the private sector.[/quote]
This is useless because you are completely dislodged from the reality we all live in, but I am going to ask once:
How do you define “efficiency” in the context of what I just quoted you as saying? Specifically. I want details. What is the measure or are the measures of the efficiency of which you speak, within the context you are speaking? Name all that apply. [/quote]
Cost is a major issue. The fact that the U.S. pays about twice as much as the rest of the world and it is the major cause of BK in this country. You think this is a system that needs to be emulated? Why aren’t the populations of other countries clamouring for U.S. style healthcare?[/quote]
You restated talking points. You did not answer the question–you have already said cost is a problem several times and you have already said the U.S. pays more than twice as much as the rest of the world several times. I asked for ways you personally measure and define “efficiency” because you have made a claim that the “government run sectors of healthcare operate more efficiently than the private ones”
You simply took what you have already said and said it again. You did not offer any measurements of efficiency that you compare from public to private sectors. You did not offer any metrics at all by which you personally judge operating efficiency between the two nor did you define measures that you consider reliable. This was the same problem when I asked for news sources you considered reliable–you had no answer other than “non corporate owned”. I was asking for examples then and I am asking for metrics now.
I also made no comments on emulating this system you speak of. In fact, I made no comments on the healthcare in this country AT ALL, I only asked you a question, hoping you would actually answer it instead of dodge the difficulty.
I am not going to bother casting pearls before swine by answering your insulting “comeback question” if you cannot put forth a cogent argument to the question I asked you. It is a waste of my time. So cowboy the fuck up or stop wasting our time if you’re going to regurgitate talking points with less than a surface understanding of the issue.
Measures of efficiency you consider reliable for judging efficiency between private and public sectors of healthcare in THIS country, ready…Go.[/quote]
cost efficiencies between the 2 since cost is what I have brought up.
Which cost efficiency category are you talking about? That is one of the questions I have been trying to drive at. How are those costs measured, and is that an accurate way of measuring said costs? Those are two other questions I have been trying to drive at.
The last link you gave is irrelevant for two reasons: 1st, I am responding to a claim you made about this country comparing public to private, not this country to other countries. That is what the second link is talking about. 2nd, that second article includes the public sector as well as the private sector for U.S. healthcare vs. the world so it does NOT make the case that the publicly funded portion of the U.S. healthcare system is performing better on health related outcomes than the private sector of U.S. healthcare compared with the rest of the world. It does not compare the performance of the two sectors separately, which is necessary to support your point.
And finally the second article you linked points specifically to some of the problems people have been trying to get you to see: That it is not the health care system itself but the poor lifestyle and dietary habits of this country that is a very large chunk of the reason for high healthcare costs. Note that I refrained from saying “all the higher costs”. However, this is NOT indicative of a problem with the healthcare system performing its function of diagnosis, treatment, medication, or hospitalization. Poor dietary and lifestyle habits will drive up costs with ANY country and ANY healthcare system regardless of funding source. And the U.S. has remarkably worse dietary habits and lifestyle choices than most other developed countries.
From the 2nd article: “Given the vast number of preventable deaths associated with smoking (465,000 per year), hypertension (395,000), obesity (216,000), physical inactivity (191,000), high blood glucose levels (190,000), high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (113,000), and other dietary risk factors, there are huge opportunities to enact policies that could make a substantial difference in health system performance Ã?¢?? and in the population’s health.4 More investments that are targeted at promoting proven strategies Ã?¢?? including tobacco taxation and smoking-cessation programs, screening and treatment for high cholesterol and blood pressure, banning of trans fat, creating incentives for people to engage in physical activity, and subsidizing the cost of consumption of nÃ?¢??3 fatty acids Ã?¢?? could dramatically reduce mortality and enhance the performance of the U.S. health care system.”
Only one of the policies that the author advocates as potential solutions to bring the poor lifestyle and dietary habits under control is a healthcare system based one (screening/treatment for high cholesterol and blood pressure, which is already being done anyways so it is a moot point). The others are legislative in nature–i.e. Congressional, not doctoral–and are not and have never been included under the “healthcare system” umbrella term. They are laws not public health care operations.[/quote]
While dietary habits play a part in healthcare costs it is difficult to believe that we spend twice as much as every other nation because of this and when you look at the difference in admin costs of government run sectors vs the private sector it goes to show how inefficient our health care system is.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
While dietary habits play a part in healthcare costs it is difficult to believe that we spend twice as much as every other nation because of this and when you look at the difference in admin costs of government run sectors vs the private sector it goes to show how inefficient our health care system is. [/quote]
We are significantly more Obese than any other nation.
"Someone who is 40% overweight is twice as likely to die prematurely as is a normal-weight person. Obesity has been linked to several serious medical conditions, including:
Heart disease and stroke.
High blood pressure.
Diabetes.
Cancer.
Gallbladder disease and gallstones.
Osteoarthritis.
Gout.
Breathing problems, such as sleep apnea (when a person stops breathing for a short episodes during sleep) and asthma. "
All of these things cost money. Which means the U.S. has to spend more money on healthcare because we are more obese than every other nation.
You would call this just a, “part,” of the issue.
Oh and before you start it has little to do with income levels/poverty.
While dietary habits play a part in healthcare costs it is difficult to believe that we spend twice as much as every other nation because of this and when you look at the difference in admin costs of government run sectors vs the private sector it goes to show how inefficient our health care system is. [/quote]
I don’t find it hard to believe we spend so much. Our rates of obesity are astronomically bigger than any other developed country in Europe. We walk about HALF as much as most other developed countries meaning we are TWICE as sedentary (Bassett D 2010, Med. & Sci in Sports & Exer.) I am not sure you grasp exactly how much worse our dietary habits and time active are than these European developed countries. Our women are 50% fatter (rate wise) than the nearest European neighbor–not the average rate, the rate of the next highest country on the fat list (OECD 2012 report). That’s 150% the rate of the nearest competition. We’re even worse compared to the average rate in Europe.
Ok, so you have narrowed it down to the fact that we are talking about administration costs between sectors then. How are those costs measured, and is that method an accurate way of measuring said costs for comparison purposes?
While dietary habits play a part in healthcare costs it is difficult to believe that we spend twice as much as every other nation because of this and when you look at the difference in admin costs of government run sectors vs the private sector it goes to show how inefficient our health care system is. [/quote]
I don’t find it hard to believe we spend so much. Our rates of obesity are astronomically bigger than any other developed country in Europe. We walk about HALF as much as most other developed countries meaning we are TWICE as sedentary (Bassett D 2010, Med. & Sci in Sports & Exer.) I am not sure you grasp exactly how much worse our dietary habits and time active are than these European developed countries. Our women are 50% fatter (rate wise) than the nearest European neighbor–not the average rate, the rate of the next highest country on the fat list (OECD 2012 report). That’s 150% the rate of the nearest competition. We’re even worse compared to the average rate in Europe.
Ok, so you have narrowed it down to the fact that we are talking about administration costs between sectors then. How are those costs measured, and is that method an accurate way of measuring said costs for comparison purposes?
[/quote]
I’m not entirely sure how to measure the costs of admin. but I do know the end results are always the same. Private is always higher. This leads me to believe that it is more efficient.
Even if Americans are less healthy as the rest of the world I still don’t see why it costs Americans twice as much. You do.
Plus we have the circumstances of the less healthy food purveyors. Companies that know their products are unhealthy and design them as such to maximize profits - because we know that is what is most important. I believe in the industry it is called “bliss point”. Absolutely immoral. But hey the profit motive is always good right?
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So what is your assessment as to the outrageous costs of U.S. healthcare?[/quote]
There are two parts.
Lack of competition, caused by unnecessary regulation (such as not being able to buy insurance from another state).
Over consumption of health care, caused by subsidizing health insurance.
This keeps cost from coming down. Why? Because they recurring costs in every state they work in, leading to higher costs.
This keeps cost from coming down. Why? Because as the government gives tax breaks for paying insurance premiums the demand is artificially high, the price point is going to be higher.
Accounting and economics. Right there.
The first is caused by protectionist policies and the other is caused by mercantilism. Both would be destroyed by conservative economic principles and health care costs would go down and be more affordable.
[quote]Zeppelin795 wrote:
So what is your assessment as to the outrageous costs of U.S. healthcare?[/quote]
There are two parts.
Lack of competition, caused by unnecessary regulation (such as not being able to buy insurance from another state).
Over consumption of health care, caused by subsidizing health insurance.
This keeps cost from coming down. Why? Because they recurring costs in every state they work in, leading to higher costs.
This keeps cost from coming down. Why? Because as the government gives tax breaks for paying insurance premiums the demand is artificially high, the price point is going to be higher.
Accounting and economics. Right there.
The first is caused by protectionist policies and the other is caused by mercantilism. Both would be destroyed by conservative economic principles and health care costs would go down and be more affordable.[/quote]
Conservative economics such as? Are other countries who pay half the amount and get a better outcome with some version of government run healthcare not subsidizing healthcare?
This is the disparity of the wealthy vs ma and pa that I have posted before about . I personally think all Corps should be tax exempt . When Ma and Pa have to pay %30 taxes it is why you see Walmarts flourishing and Ma and Pa drowning in debt .
I know there are people on this board that will say the Walmarts just manage their business better . It is those tax write offs ( I know it is illegal to write off political contributions EYE ROLL )
[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
I think it’s wrong that 43% of persons who should have to pay taxes don’t.[/quote]
Those 47%, 43% type numbers are a little misleading. Around 10 percent is elderly and it’s also got some people who are making over 200,000 but zeroing income tax bills.
Also I think it’s a little unfair to say those people making 200,000 and over aren’t paying taxes because they surely are paying other taxes just not income tax. We need a less convoluted tax code, and we need less taxes in general because we’ve reduced spending and waste therefore we’ve reduced the need to tax more.
We have WAYYY too many freeloaders, but those percentages don’t tell half the story.
Double taxation, pay on corporate income and then on capital gains and/or dividends tax. Goes way higher than middle class families. My capital gains
Corporate is around 15-35% and then capital gains is around 10-39.6%. [/quote]
Then Ma and Pa are paying double taxes and wall street is not , Eye roll
[/quote]
Not that you have even a basic understanding of the IRC, but “wall st” is paying ordinary rates on everything they earn the vast majority of the time.
Now do on and link some article about hedge fund managers getting capital gain rates that talks about carries. Which you won’t understand when you read it, nor after you google what a carry is.
