Will liberals ever think and look at health care facts?
Or will they continue to listen to what politicians and the media tell them?
"A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million."
"Many of the same people pushing the incorrect numbers of uninsured Americans also claim that these people cannot “afford” insurance."
"But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326."
"So what is the true extent of the uninsured “crisis?” The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million."
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx
According to their findings between 1988 and 2006:
The percentage of obese adults between 40 and 74 (determined by body mass index of 30 or higher) increased from 28% to 36%, reinforcing findings of many studies indicating Americans are getting fatter.
Physical activity 12 times or more per month among people in that age group declined from 53% to 43%.
Smoking rates remained essentially flat, going from 26.9% to 26.1%.
Those people eating five or more fruits and vegetables daily dropped from 42% to 26%.
Moderate alcohol use increased from 40% to 51%. Moderate use was defined as having up to one drink daily for women and two for men.
I keep hearing about our life expectancy compared to other countries. That if our health care was so great, we’d be the healthiest country in the world. It’s very easy to blame "the big bad insurance companies" or the "wealthy doctors," but isn’t the real problem us? Aren’t insurance prices soaring because, not only do we cover all the uninsured ER visits, but the rise in costs to take care of the "smoke, drink, and eat bacon double cheeseburgers" society we live in?
http://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/news/20090529/healthy-living-still-eludes-americans?src=RSS_PUBLIC
So if you’d like to work on health care, great. If you want to tweak the system so we can help the 10 million or so that are uninsured, great. But can we at least use facts to debate the real issue instead of liberal "scare tactics."
Wow. Great answers, libs. Like Captain Parker. His only response is that I cut and paste from the articles. Hahaha! Great point, Captain. I change my mind on health care now!
Future-
Did you read it? Most of those 37 million make $50,000+ a year, meaning they can afford it but CHOOSE not to have it.
I can already see that you have deduced that this is an incredibly complex problem. The mistake often made here is that more medical procedures equals better health. In America, that might be marginally true, and I agree that obesity is the #1 health problem in the US. I am not in favor of throwing more money at a problem so large and so pervasive that few really understand its true nature. I AM in favor of a detailed and lengthy analysis of just what we are doing wrong, or badly, that other economies aren’t doing.
Meanwhile, we must allow access to medical care for those who need it, and at a cost/price that is affordable to them. One of these problems is the preexisting-conditions clause of private insurance. No matter how much money I make, I can’t get private insurance because I have 4 preexisting conditions. For Americans in the same boat as I, there needs to be serious reform and control of the oligopoly of the insurance industry, and I believe that this move should come first.
life expectancy is not dependent on just medical care. For example, Texas A&M health economist Robert Ohsfeldt and health economics consultant John Schneider point out that deaths from accidents and homicides in America are much higher than in any other of the developed countries. Taking accidental deaths and homicides between 1980 and 1999 into account, they calculate that instead of being at near the bottom of the list of developed countries, U.S. life expectancy would actually rank at the top.
However as Carl Bialik, the invaluable Wall Street Journal "Numbers Guy" columnist, notes Ohsfeldt and Schneider’s analysis does not account for the fact a better health care system would have saved more accident victims and thus would have boosted life expectancy. In fact, in 2002, Harvard researchers argued that the U.S. murder rate is much lower than it would otherwise have been because so many assault victims are being saved by improved medical care. Nevertheless, Ohsfeldt and Schneider are likely right that U.S. life expectancy is being depressed by our higher accident and homicide rates.
America’s relatively high infant mortality rate also lowers our life expectancy ranking. A 2007 study done by Baruch College economists June and David O"Neill sheds some light on why U.S. infant mortality rates are higher—more low weight births. In their study, U.S. infant mortality was 6.8 per 1,000 live births, and Canada’s was 5.3. Low birth weight significantly increases an infant’s chance of dying. Teen mothers are much more likely to bear low birth weight babies and teen motherhood is almost three times higher in the U.S. than it is in Canada. The authors calculate that if Canada had the same the distribution of low-weight births as the U.S., its infant mortality rate would rise above the U.S. rate of 6.8 per 1,000 live births to 7.06. On the other hand, if the U.S. had Canada’s distribution of low-weight births, its infant mortality rate would fall to 5.4. In other words, the American health care system is much better than Canada’s at saving low birth weight babies —we just have more babies who are likely to die before their first birthdays.
Life expectancy rates also depend on personal habits such as smoking, diet, and physical activity. Interestingly, U.S. smoking rates are lower (17 percent of adults) than for many developed countries with higher life expectancies. For instance, 30 percent of Japanese adults smoke daily. In France, 23 percent of adults smoke; Germany, 25 percent; Switzerland, 25 percent; Spain, 28 percent, and the U.K., 25 percent.
References :
http://www.reason.com/news/show/127038.html
Liberals never let facts get in their way.
References :
I think the real facts are in my bills
References :
No and when whatever plan they cram down our throats fails or show signs of being a bad idea, they will figure out a way to blame it on Bush or the Republicans. The will claim that the Republicans offered no alternatives, which they have and which the Democrats have summarily dismissed.
References :
Why even tweak the system? There are more pressing issues facing this nation, like North Korea and Iran’s nuclear ambitions and abortion. Why are we wasting time with healthcare debate for less the 10% of Americans?
References :
Yes we do. And it is unafordable for those that have 7 kids and minimum wage jobs.
References :
You are only allowed to use facts approved by the white house. To do otherwise, it would seem that you are questioning the wisdom and vision of The Obama.
References :
Wow, I can see you can cut and paste. Congratulations.
Edit: I don’t care what your position is any more than you care about my position — do you think you’re going to "change anyone’s mind" on the issue because you post an article?
References :
Liberals may emote but they never think.
References :
"But can we at least use facts to debate the real issue instead of liberal "scare tactics." "
You mean like saying that the government is going to use "death panels" to "kill grandma"?
Or saying that Obama is proposing "socialized medicine", that you won’t be able to keep your same doctor, or you’ll have to give up your current coverage?
The current "system" is a mess, and you seem to minimize the huge costs associated with providing expensive emergency room treatment for all of the nation’s uninsured at taxpayer expense.
References :
37 million uninsured Americans is not enough?
References :
The FACT is that Americans pay DOUBLE (per person) what Europeans and Canadians pay (on average), and still have a SHORTER LIFE EXPECTANCY …
References :
No, facts are something Liberals easily and freely ignore!
References :
I can already see that you have deduced that this is an incredibly complex problem. The mistake often made here is that more medical procedures equals better health. In America, that might be marginally true, and I agree that obesity is the #1 health problem in the US. I am not in favor of throwing more money at a problem so large and so pervasive that few really understand its true nature. I AM in favor of a detailed and lengthy analysis of just what we are doing wrong, or badly, that other economies aren’t doing.
Meanwhile, we must allow access to medical care for those who need it, and at a cost/price that is affordable to them. One of these problems is the preexisting-conditions clause of private insurance. No matter how much money I make, I can’t get private insurance because I have 4 preexisting conditions. For Americans in the same boat as I, there needs to be serious reform and control of the oligopoly of the insurance industry, and I believe that this move should come first.
References :
Diabetic since 2001.
Some probably have but will never admit it.
References :