2007 congressional report on healthcare contrasting the US with other developed nations. This is based on the WHO's healthcare ranking. The WHO no longer ranks different nations healthcare systems. (I wonder why not?)

your argument is exactly analogous to "I lost AA to KK 3 times in a row, I should start open folding AA" or "I've been open shoving AA and it is showing a profit therefore this is the best way to play AA". I am arguing from statistical EV (the big picture) not bad beat (anecdote). I believe in science, math, numbers et cetera, especially as they apply to healthcare and other large systems.

Consider an imaginary country, Peakalia, that has the worlds best K-12 school system and it is very expensive to attend. Only 2% of children in Peakalia get to attend Peakalia's K-12 while the other 98% grow up illiterate. Does Peakalia have a better education system than the US? Might not some rich citizens of other countries send their kids to attend the world's best schools in Peakalia? Is it in other country's best interests to repelicate the Peakalia education system? Is it in Peakalia's best interest to maintain the education status quo?

you may have been, but I wasn't. Funny you throw in constitutions now too!

Garon

I only read the first page synopsis, so we spend more because we do more advanced procedures that aren't as commonly available in the other countries. I don't see that as spending more to get less however. And that's why people go to the USA, to get those advanced procedures not as readily available (if at all) in their own country. Or for the more mundane procedures where they would have to wait who knows how long for in their own universal healthcare countries.

As for your imaginary country, are you trying to say only 2% of the people have access to good healthcare in the USA? I would have to disagree with that, so it doesn't really equate unless your 2% figure (or close) is correct.

Maybe the reason the WHO doesn't rank them anymore is because their rankings are skewed in some way politically? Or maybe it's covered later in the link you supplied.

Just skimmed over the rest, don't really see where the USA comes off so badly, did I miss it?

Garon

No money in healthcare everyone's broke.

I know very little about a lot of things, but while reading this thread whenever mpethy/sammy/venice gets into a serious conversation with someone, i can feel my IQ growing, just wish i could somehow contribute to the discussion.

Less american isn't meaningless. It is short hand for a lot of principles, such as limited government power, sovereignty of the people, liberty being a primary goal, self-reliance, etc.

as for the universal vote, I am talking about everybody being able to vote. Not that I agree with any of our past restrictions on the vote--we always restricted it in illogical ways based on arbitrary classifications that had no relationship to one's ability to wisely vote.

The problem with democracy is that to the extent that you give the people the power to vote themselves bread and circuses, or health care and social security, they will unfailingly do so without regard to the long term problems with such programs.

Not that I am opposed to democracy; I am just opposed to universal democracy.


Meh, two of these three guys have undeserved reputations.

Beck is more like me than the other two, and he is also mor like me than he is like those two. He seems very principled to me.

O'Reilly is not a conservative at all, as his support for health care reform, if not exactly Obama care, should make clear. I like O'Reilly, but I rarely agree with him. He is mostly a pragmatist, and, in my opinion, by definition, this means he has no guiding principles.

Hannity is the only one of the three that I think is a conservative commentator. I think he is a right-leaning authoritarian who is at least as dangerous as the left-leaning authoritarians such as Obama (or Maddow and Olbermann, to make a commentator to commentator comparison). I can't stand that guy. He thinks it is logically consistent to argue for small government when it comes to health care, and big government when it comes to, say, gay rights. bleh.

In the U.S., the process of making a policy decision is supposed to matter more than reaching a "good" result, simply because what is considered good varies from time to time and place to place. That is why the U.S. constitution talks about process almost to the exclusion of results.



The only problem I have with this is that if you are a strict constructionist, your opinion is that the U.S. government lacks the power to be involved in health care at all, and that is the way it should be.

I'll never win liberals to my side for a very simple reason that was expressed best by Ronald Reagan: liberals see government as the answer to all societal problems; libertarians (and some conservatives) see government as the problem.

These positions are simply irreconcilable. I don't try to convince anybody of anything anymore. I just point out the inarguable facts of the way the U.S. constitution is supposed to work, and the inarguable facts of our founding principles.

How would you restrict universal democracy? You aren't allowed to vote unless ... ?

Garon

You are correct not all states but 48 states do force you to have at least liability insurance.


I refuse to accept how you are trying to turn a simple point I was making into a very negative point as to try and make me, or others, believe that my point is a negative one by associating it with something negative such as robbing a bank.

I am in no way condoning robbing any bank, let alone a bank vs a 7-11. Nor is that even close to what I was saying. If your theory of what I 'believe" holds true then I would think that your point of view is elitist. You think that just because someone can't afford proper health care, or due to bad genetics they don't deserve the same health care that you receive, hence making you better than them in some way. Yet, I don't think that at all.

I see your side about viewing health care as an extra and those that can afford it, get it and is not a divine right for any American just because they are a citizen. If I have read your statements correctly that seems to be your main issue with this bill correct?

Besides we aren't forcing doctors or anyone to do things. If its considered forcing to abide by new regulations for the betterment to every US citizen as a whole, regarding health care, then so be it. We are hardly robbing doctors of anything. Will they not be duly compensated for services rendered under the new plan? I am not sitting here thinking....hmmm a lawyer makes a lot of money how about we force them to do things, no it's nothing of the sort.

So since we are comparing a maid and a doctor that means they are 100% equal in your eyes, as far as labor costs are concerned?? Comparing the two is ludicrous in this example.

But those hospitals have to stay open regardless of having patients or not, to a certain extent. They can't just have normal business hours, they have to have X amount of persons on hand at any given time to handle an estimated work load.

Again, I can't help but think how flawed the current system is and has been for many years. Surely we can all agree that something had to be done in regards to regulation and reigning in the insurance and health care industry in some way???

Since I've read you don't have a car, you not have been affected by this. However, many states require you to buy insurance at a minimum amount or show the financial means to pay it a certain level of claim if you own a car. I'll admit that you can avoid it if you chose to never drive a car.

However, the desire to give people medical care and the desire to keep the costs reasonable requires mandating everyone have a means of paying for it. I understand the intellectual exercise of saying, "If you don't want to pay for insurance, that's fine, but don't expect the ambulance to pick you if you have a heart attack unless you have the means to pay for everything." The reality is that only an extreme few are willing to let someone die under those circumstances. Since as a society we demand that if someone has an immediate medical need, it is filled, society has to accept that that person has a responsibility to pay his or her share of the cost to do this. Requiring everyone to have insurance is one method. Funding through taxes is another.

On a practical note, the Supreme Court can not rule in favor of those who want to challenge the law on this basis. There are so many things that government does that a certain segment of the population opposes that isn't in the Constitution that anarchy would occur if it ever set such a precedent.

Beatles are the greatest band ever.

LOL, speaking of health care reform.

So I mentioned a few weeks ago that the opportunity to buy an urgent care had come up at a price/revenue that might actually be possible. My mom works there and knows the clinic. I was epically excited. As I have complained to some of you, my mom doesn't have much of a retirement plan, so doing something like this would be an incredible opportunity for her to eventually scale back her hours yet still make a pretty good living.

She went in to work a few days after my meeting with the owner and he started saying he wasn't going to sell it, he is crazy to give it up, what would he do all day, he would butt heads with his wife if he stayed at home etc etc. I called him and left a message 2 Friday's ago and never heard from him. Assumed the deal was dead and thought it was kind of strange he wouldn't just call and say so. He was on vacation until this week. Today I get a call from my mom saying he is wondering why I haven't called and if I have talked to the bank.

He is going through a very tough time in his life so it is very possible that he had second thoughts, but after a week of vacation at the beach, now really does want to sell.

Or...

He is very worried that Health Care Reform passed????

I have been trying to decide what the reform will do to the reimbursement rates. Reimbursement rates are high to compensate for non paying patients... Now that everybody theoretically will be a paying patients, reimbursement rates seem like they should drop, hurting urgent care. However, reimbursement rates in urgent care are already discounted heavily compared to ER rates, which is of course where the main problem with non paying patients lies, so maybe nothing will change for urgent care reimbursements since the 100% paying patient rate is already priced in relative to ER??

Cliff notes:

vnh

this.

Here we were having a nice nonjudgemental conversation on something completely irrelevant and safe and non-controversial, and you have to muck it all up with a totally radical statement about a completely controversial subject like music!

Garon

It's hard to argue, but i prefer the Stones' grittiness.

I love the Stones also, but when I listen to the Beatles it just makes me happy.

I mentioned this before ITT, but I saw the LOVE Beatles show at the Mirage a few weeks ago, and I felt giddy like a school boy.


Edit:
Right now my mix has Fresh Prince "Summertime" playing....

now Johnny Cash....digging it but this is the most random shuffle ever.
Beatles
Tribe
Cash
Killers

The government requirement to have auto insurance is contingent upon you driving a car. (And not all states require insurance.)

the government requirement to buy health insurance is contingent upon--being alive.

There is a difference. So, I say again, the government has never before required everybody to buy a particular service or product.

This simple historical point really ought to be beyond dispute.

now the Ramones....okay I am done with the music updates.

Advice to any body interviewing for a job.

Know what is on your resume. Don't lie about something that we can find out easily about.

5 people I interview in the last 2 days and each of them could not explain the "skills or experience" they have on their resume....search continues.

Sammy what do you think are the most common mistakes people make in interviews, aside from the obvious lying on an app/resume or not being able to explain why something is on a resume?

Whipping your **** out during an interview is apparently a bad idea no matter how much your friends swear it isn't.

It is. We've gotten close, but not gone this far.

The problem is that the vast majority of the US society will not accept that someone who requires medical treatment be denied it on the basis of being able to pay. Can this be accepted as beyond dispute?

Is there any realistic chance of changing this opinion?

If not, then the options are:

1. Let a portion of the society free-load, getting medical attention when they need it at essentially no cost to them if they don't have the means to pay for it completely. (Our past system).

2. Force everyone to buy insurance (Let's ignore for the moment whether it is fair to make it a universal rate or variable depending on other conditions).

3. Have the government as a single payer covering it with taxes.

4. Stick our heads in the sand and hope everything holds together until we die.

I will note having gone through this that the insurance companies will concede that they have to take someone with a pre-existing condition. They will simply say, "that occurred before you got our insurance, we aren't covering any expense related to your existing illness."

On another note, I suspect that the US will end up with two medical treatment systems, like Italy has. One is the public, which will be bare bones, involve long waits, and generally functional. The other will be private. You pay cash. The care is lavish and there were no waits.

When my wife I and were there, we had US private insurance through the company I worked for, so I got to see the private side. When my wife had an ultrasound, we were wisked in immediately, had plenty of time with the doctor doing the test and he spend the time showing us lots of details. A friend of ours was Australian and had an ultrasound the same day. Waited 5 hours in a dingy room, they did the minimal necessary and she was rushed out.

When my wife brought our baby to the doctor's office, the receptionist would take the baby and play with it while the doctor spoke to her so she could pay attention. Good luck getting that in the US. The private hospital in town was unmarked and we didn't know about it until one of the doctors told us where it was.

Therefore, I don't think it will be the death of top notch care in the US. However, it is going to disappear for the masses.

1. Unprepared. Have some clue about the job and company you want to work for. Have questions. Don't have answers to the obvious tough questions you'll be asked (weakness, problems with other employees, difficult boss). The people who post HHs about, "I got raised on the XX, what do I do now," are going to struggle at interviews too.

2. It is not about you. I don't give a **** why you need the job, what are you going to do for me?

Oh if you want actual advice, it definitely depends on the industry and type of job, however here is something incredibly important.

Don't act cocky and above all else, don't pretend to know everything (or even very much) about the job you will have to do. At the same time, be confident about your abilities and express that you plan to search out any answers you need, and if that fails, you will ask someone - but again, confident not cocky. It is all about balancing your confidence/cockiness range. I think a common mistake for entry level type applicants is the feeling that you have to know everything before you are hired. You don't, and no reasonable hiring manager will think so. They are looking for someone who is reasonably qualified, with a reasonable personality that they can train.

mpethybridge -
What about the right to a fair trial? The right to an attorney if someone's unable to afford one?

In poker, we typically do not measure our success according to how many awesome bluffs we pulled off -- we measure our success by our winrate.

In healthcare we do not typically measure success by how many fancy procedures we perform or new drugs we take, we measure success according to results oriented outcomes like life expectancy or infant mortality (nice easy things to measure just as actual WR is easier to quantify than how baller a particular bluff was).

2% is hyperbole to illustrate a point. You said "but people come to the US to get some procedures done" with the implication that this means our healthcare system as a whole is better than other than, say, France or Germany's system. My point is that having the worlds best hospital (with the worlds best surgical staff) does not make your national healthcare system the best. The richest person in the world currently resides in mexico -- does that mean that the median standard or mean standard of living in Mexico is better than the USA? Should the USA aspire to have standard of living demographics similar to Mexico?

While it may or may not be true that the USA can provide the best treatment for most illnesses to the wealthy, I conceded this point because it is irrelevant to the argument about the quality of a national healthcare system as a whole.

spending

• USA: 15.3% of GDP, $6102 per capita
• France: 10.5% of GDP, $3159 per capita
• Germany: 10.6% of GDP, $3043 per capita
• UK: 8.1% of GDP, $2508 per capita.
• Canada: 9.9% of GDP, $3165 per capita

If you compare per

Results: life expectancy at birth (higher is better)

• USA: 77.5 years
• Canada: 79.9
• Germany: 78.6
• France: 80.3

So we spend a lot more money, yet live shorter lives.

It must be acknowledged that citizens of these other countries do not have the the following freedoms that we US citizens currently enjoy:

• The freedom to be bankrupted by disease or injury
• the freedom to have the insurance you have been paying into for years cancelled. (we are apparently losing this freedom when Obamacare goes into effect).