IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, I did answer your question, but you completely missed it. Here', I'll repeat it for you: Obesity is one factor for bad health, but how about education, genes and environment?

You never answered yes or no. You continue to obfuscate. I will answer your question by saying education, genes, and environment are factors, but we would need to argue over their importance. Bottom line, in regard to the equation: health care = life expectancy, the equation should read:
Lifestyle + Health care = Life expectancy.

Thats all I am arguing here, thats all. There was the suggestion that health care = life expectancy and it just is a basic point that needs to be understood as incorrect.

So imposter, are you going to continue to call names, the cowardly way out, or are you going to use common sense, if you have any?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:
Now, now is right, cyclops. The crux of my whole argument is summed up as follows:

Life expectancy by country does not equal quality of health care by country. There are other major factors that need to be plugged into the equation.

Is it correct or not?

Some criticize the point, but the point is important to dispel the claim here that health care = life expectancy. It does not, plain and simple, and if we can at least admit to that simple fact, maybe some intelligence can be applied to the subject?

You don't think that things like obesity and nutrition fall under 'health care?'

Cycloptichorn

Not paid health care as part of the health care system, unless you are going to the doctor to eat meals in his office, cooked by him and served by his staff, 3 times a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks?

cyclops, are you now going to try to obfuscate the point with stupid arguments?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
okie, I did answer your question, but you completely missed it. Here', I'll repeat it for you: Obesity is one factor for bad health, but how about education, genes and environment?

You never answered yes or no. You continue to obfuscate. I will answer your question by saying education, genes, and environment are factors, but we would need to argue over their importance. Bottom line, in regard to the equation: health care = life expectancy, the equation should read:
Lifestyle + Health care = Life expectancy.

Thats all I am arguing here, thats all. There was the suggestion that health care = life expectancy and it just is a basic point that needs to be understood as incorrect.

So imposter, are you going to continue to call names, the cowardly way out, or are you going to use common sense, if you have any?

That's not a "yes" or "no" question, but that's to be expected.

See if you can understand any of the following studies:

From the New England Journal of Medicine:

The quality of American medical care falls short of expectations.1,2 We have previously reported that U.S. adults receive about half of recommended health care services.3 How much variation is there among population subgroups in the likelihood of receiving needed care? Previous studies have found that patients who are women, older, members of racial and ethnic minorities, poorer, less educated, or uninsured are less likely to receive needed care, largely as a result of lack of access to care (determined by whether an encounter with a health care provider occurs), rather than a deficiency in the quality of care (determined by whether the encounter is necessary and provides the recommended service).4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 Previous studies have focused on a narrow set of quality indicators and conditions in selected populations and have had a limited ability to adjust for the range of factors associated with poorer quality. Few studies have examined quality across the continuum of care for multiple conditions.

*************************************

Lara Bryant ([email protected]) (Department of Economics, College of Business, Florida Atlantic University)
Sharmila Vishwasrao ([email protected]) (Department of Economics, College of Business, Florida Atlantic University)

Abstract

Many studies have documented adverse health outcomes for uninsured patients in U.S. hospitals. These poor outcomes have been attributed to their health status and limited access to healthcare. A measure of treatment that remains unexplored is the quality of the physicians treating uninsured patients. We examine whether uninsured and poor patients are treated by lower quality physicians with four measures of physician quality. Using a hospital fixed-effects model, we find that cardiac patients are matched to physician quality based on their ability to pay. Even after controlling for average physician quality within a hospital and patient characteristics, we find that uninsured and Medicaid patients are generally treated by lower quality physicians. We also find that while for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals treat the uninsured with lower quality physicians, government hospitals do not. However, there is evidence that hospitals of all ownership types treat Medicaid patients with lower quality physicians.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie, I did answer your question, but you completely missed it. Here', I'll repeat it for you: Obesity is one factor for bad health, but how about education, genes and environment?

You never answered yes or no. You continue to obfuscate. I will answer your question by saying education, genes, and environment are factors, but we would need to argue over their importance. Bottom line, in regard to the equation: health care = life expectancy, the equation should read:
Lifestyle + Health care = Life expectancy.

Thats all I am arguing here, thats all. There was the suggestion that health care = life expectancy and it just is a basic point that needs to be understood as incorrect.

So imposter, are you going to continue to call names, the cowardly way out, or are you going to use common sense, if you have any?

That's not a "yes" or "no" question, but that's to be expected.

See if you can understand any of the following studies:

There you go again with your cowardly cut and pastes. You are stupider than I thought.

0 Replies

I know I'm stupid, but at least I'm alive!

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Now, now is right, cyclops. The crux of my whole argument is summed up as follows:

Life expectancy by country does not equal quality of health care by country. There are other major factors that need to be plugged into the equation.

Is it correct or not?

Some criticize the point, but the point is important to dispel the claim here that health care = life expectancy. It does not, plain and simple, and if we can at least admit to that simple fact, maybe some intelligence can be applied to the subject?

You don't think that things like obesity and nutrition fall under 'health care?'

Cycloptichorn

Not paid health care as part of the health care system, unless you are going to the doctor to eat meals in his office, cooked by him and served by his staff, 3 times a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks?

cyclops, are you now going to try to obfuscate the point with stupid arguments?

It's not a stupid argument. Nutrition and exercise are an important part of overall physical health. Many people need a doctors' advice on what the best way for them to maintain a healthy lifestyle and diet are; without access to that advice, it is more difficult for them to solve their problems with obesity, and we all know that this leads to much greater complications down the road.

You are Appealing to Extremes with your 'cooked by doctor' argument. What we need here in America is subsidized, universal preventative medicine. Obesity, cancer, heart disease are all extremely expensive to treat. They are much cheaper to prevent.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

okie, Aren't you ever curious why all the questions are directed at you?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are Appealing to Extremes with your 'cooked by doctor' argument. What we need here in America is subsidized, universal preventative medicine. Obesity, cancer, heart disease are all extremely expensive to treat. They are much cheaper to prevent.

Cycloptichorn

I don't object to educational campaigns and more exercise in schools, etc., but you are suggesting that obesity, cancer, and heart disease can be cured with a nanny state. You can have it but I still like some degree of freedom, cyclops.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, Aren't you ever curious why all the questions are directed at you?

Questions are fine, but mindless name calling is pretty brainless, such as you love to do here. I notice you don't like to answer simple questions that even have obvious answers. You flunk, imposter. You get an F.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You are Appealing to Extremes with your 'cooked by doctor' argument. What we need here in America is subsidized, universal preventative medicine. Obesity, cancer, heart disease are all extremely expensive to treat. They are much cheaper to prevent.

Cycloptichorn

I don't object to educational campaigns and more exercise in schools, etc., but you are suggesting that obesity, cancer, and heart disease can be cured with a nanny state. You can have it but I still like some degree of freedom, cyclops.

Well, there's a medium between the 'nanny state' and the 'don't give a damn about you' state.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

There you go, appealing to extremes again. Obviously, the state does care about you, mainly your money. Do you think they will ever really care about you. If you think they do or ever will, then you are delusional. Of course liberals live under the idealistic notion that the State should and are capable of caring, and I think you are wrong. That is one reason, the founders distrusted government, and we still should, and that is why this country is based on individual freedom. If you want the government to provide every single necessity and take care of you, why don't you move to some utopia where such a thing supposedly exists, cyclops. My patience with you bleeding heart libs is running real low.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

There you go, appealing to extremes again. Obviously, the state does care about you, mainly your money. Do you think they will ever really care about you. If you think they do or ever will, then you are delusional. Of course liberals live under the idealistic notion that the State should and are capable of caring, and I think you are wrong. That is one reason, the founders distrusted government, and we still should, and that is why this country is based on individual freedom. If you want the government to provide every single necessity and take care of you, why don't you move to some utopia where such a thing supposedly exists, cyclops. My patience with you bleeding heart libs is running real low.

I guess it's a Liberal notion that the State, which is made up of the people of America, and representative of them, should exhibit some sort of caring for the very people who make it up, other then just their money.

I don't think it's necessary to include insults to liberals in each and every post, do you? Just trying to have a nice conversation about health care.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't think it's necessary to include insults to liberals in each and every post, do you? Just trying to have a nice conversation about health care.

Cycloptichorn

I don't believe I have ever seen you scold a fellow liberal (cicerone imposter and kuvas come to mind) about insults... Why is that Cyc?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't think it's necessary to include insults to liberals in each and every post, do you? Just trying to have a nice conversation about health care.

Cycloptichorn

I don't believe I have ever seen you scold a fellow liberal (cicerone imposter and kuvas come to mind) about insults... Why is that Cyc?

I guess you haven't been looking. I've said, just as an example, more than once that I don't think it's necessary to insult Okie to have a conversation with him - specifically to CI, in fact.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't think it's necessary to include insults to liberals in each and every post, do you? Just trying to have a nice conversation about health care.

Cycloptichorn

I don't believe I have ever seen you scold a fellow liberal (cicerone imposter and kuvas come to mind) about insults... Why is that Cyc?

I guess you haven't been looking. I've said, just as an example, more than once that I don't think it's necessary to insult Okie to have a conversation with him - specifically to CI, in fact.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, I will give you some credit for what you say. To be fair, even imposter has agreed with a small number of my opinions, but it is fairly rare and he mostly tends to go back to insults. I have tolerated far more than anyone should here, especially for someone that makes an honest attempt for posting honest well reasoned posts, which by the way is not typical of every poster here.

Cyclops is one that almost always posts an opinion with stated reasons, without much name calling, or perhaps little at all. I tolerate imposter because he does post reasons instead of entirely name calling, which is better than only name calling.

I did resort to using the word, and derivatives of the word, "stupid," here this morning for what I consider truly stupid reasoing. I don't mean it as an insult, but rather an attempt to get certain people to see the light, but in all honesty that is probably a futile hope. Well, maybe some % insult. My apologies.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I don't mean it as an insult, but rather an attempt to get certain people to see the light, but in all honesty that is probably a futile hope.

rofl

0 Replies

To be fair, I edited the post, dys. See above to include:

"Well, maybe some % insult. My apologies."

And unbelievably, this is all about this statement:

Bottom line, in regard to the equation: health care = life expectancy, the equation should read:
Lifestyle + Health care = Life expectancy.

I find it absolutely incredible that some people cannot agree with the above. I repeat, if you don't, you must be stupid. Take it as in insult if you wish.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

To be fair, I edited the post, dys. See above to include:

"Well, maybe some % insult. My apologies.
Okie said "to be fair" okie I have to admit that some days you are a real hoot

0 Replies

okie wrote:

You never answered yes or no. You continue to obfuscate. I will answer your question by saying education, genes, and environment are factors, but we would need to argue over their importance. Bottom line, in regard to the equation: health care = life expectancy, the equation should read:
Lifestyle + Health care = Life expectancy.

Thats all I am arguing here, thats all. There was the suggestion that health care = life expectancy and it just is a basic point that needs to be understood as incorrect.

I don't know. I don't see how anybody made the argument that you are trying to counter - that "health care = life expectancy."

It's certainly a factor. But every comparison between countries involves a look a numerous factors. There's life expectancy, there's infant mortality, there are cancer survival rates, there are ratios of doctors and nurses and hospital beds per capita, there's the per capita cost of health care, there's the cost of health care in relation to the GDP, there are average waiting times, there's access to health care, there are efficiency and equity of health care, etc. etc. etc.

When looking at the whole picture, those factors do give us a pretty good picture about the health care system in a specific country. That's why nobody argues that the health care system in Burkina Faso just might be the best in the world - in spite of a life expectancy of some 49 years - if it just wasn't for all those cultural factors that you have to take into account.

No.

Looking at the summary of all factors rather seems to suggest that something like a health care system doesn't really exist in Burkina Faso. And looking at the summary of all factors of health care in the USA seems to suggest that the American health care system is not the best one in the world. It's certainly very good for a very large number of people. But apparently, it really sucks for quite a large number of people, too.

In that regard, other countries seem to do better. And I don't suggest that there's one single, perfect system that would work everywhere. There's very likely not a system that doesn't have problems somewhere.

It's just that in summary, there seems to be a better way to implement a health care system than what the United States currently have. Which is a pity, because I'm pretty sure that America could do better - improving the system and bringing down costs.

0 Replies

okie: Thats all I am arguing here, thats all. There was the suggestion that health care = life expectancy and it just is a basic point that needs to be understood as incorrect.

Please show us who amongst us (list all the names) made such a claim or suggested that "health care = life expectancy?"

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know