obama caves again

[Quantum Windbag]

That's you, son. Compare the stats with the industrialized nations and we clearly pay more for poorer lives and fewer years. You know it, I know it.

Want to bet on that?

Not that I like defending Jake, but he's absolutely right.

The United States ranks 35th in life expectency...

Life Expectancy At Birth, Total years statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Japan is at the top...

Actually, you are both wrong. You are assuming that health care spending directly contributes to longer life, which is ridiculous, and directly contradicted by Jake's claims. It is as stupid as arguing we need to spend more money on education because we spend more per student than any other nation and score lower on tests than they do. Examine the data, educate yourself, and come back and tell me why Jake is wrong.

Either that, or come back and tell me he is right again, and I will educate you myself. I have a few posts lying around here explaining why that is wrong if you prefer to cheat, go look them up.

 

[Trajan]

That's you, son. Compare the stats with the industrialized nations and we clearly pay more for poorer lives and fewer years. You know it, I know it.

Want to bet on that?

Not that I like defending Jake, but he's absolutely right.

The United States ranks 35th in life expectency...

Life Expectancy At Birth, Total years statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Japan is at the top...

all isn't as it appears....

 

[Foxfyre]

That's you, son. Compare the stats with the industrialized nations and we clearly pay more for poorer lives and fewer years. You know it, I know it.

Want to bet on that?

Not that I like defending Jake, but he's absolutely right.

The United States ranks 35th in life expectency...

Life Expectancy At Birth, Total years statistics - countries compared - NationMaster

Japan is at the top...

And yet there are Japanese people who prefer the U.S. freedom, choices, options, and opportunities to the far more government controlled society of Japan. And Japanese people on average live longer in this country than they do in most other groups. So shall we attribute that to genes? Or diet? Or healthcare?

We don't KNOW what life expectancy overall in the USA would be if the government controlled all healthcare. (If Obamacare is implemented across the board, we will find out I suppose.) But it is a pretty safe bet that it is not bad healthcare but rather numerous other factors, with demographics being a large part of it, that determines U.S. life expectancy.

 

[syrenn]

Gee, I don't know, could it be because the fucking shit stain law known as Obamacare makes it illegal to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions?

Idiot.

You mean actually having laws that are HUMANE?

Heaven forbid.

You really allowing kids to die of cancer because it was a pre-existing condition- which is what the insurance companies were doing before the AHA - was a good thing? Really?

Frankly, instead of being wrapped around the axle about the 300 in birth control pills, you should be wrapped around the axle that Hanaway, the CEO of Cigna who let Natalie Sarkisyan die becasue they wouldn't pay for a liver transplant, got a 73 million dollar severance package for pulling that kind of crap.

Laws are not supposed to be humane, they are supposed to be just. PETA just tried to sue Sea World for slavery because they use killer whales and dolphins in their shows. They think that is humane, doesn't make it any less stupid.

As for Natalie, she had recurrent leukemia, multiple organ failure, and a less than 40% chance of surviving 6 months if she had gotten a transplant. Most doctors interviewed back then would have been reluctant to perform the operation even if it had been approved. Frankly, it made more sense to skip her and give the liver to someone who would live longer.

For the record, under the IPAB guidelines in Obamacare Natalie would not have gotten approved for a transplant either. Since you just called Obamacare a humane law I guess that means not giving her the liver was the humane thing to do.

To be frank, I agree with you. It is both the humane and just thing to do not to waste precious resources and a liver on someone who is not even going to live a year. If, on the other hand, her parents wanted to pay for it out of their own pocket, go for it. that is actually what Obama said when he first started talking about a public option, so I guess that means I agree with him also.

When the time comes, I put my pets down.... and its very humane.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some may argue other factors contributed to mortality besides equitable and affordable health care. Probably no more than in Japan or Great Britain or New Zealand or Tawain. Yes, inevitably, we will find out. I do not doubt the inevitability of universal health care in the U.S, and I have no doubt that which makes the U.S. exceptional will remain untouched.

 

[Liability]

Some may argue other factors contributed to our factors involving mortality besides equitable and affordable health care. Probably no more than in Japan or Great Britain or New Zealand or Tawain. Yes, inevitably, we will find out. I have no doubt the inevitability of universal health care in the U.S, and I have no doubt that which makes the U.S. exceptional will remain untouched.

Brilliant!

 

[logical4u]

Personally I think that giving women equal coverage for preventative health care is important and making laws to pander to a religion is un-American.

But a lot of stupid people only care about stupid laws that legislate their moral views.

personally, i find it difficult to equate birth control with preventive health care.

i guess i'm stupid since i see this as a first amendment issue and not a moral one

i'll endeavor to persevere, nonetheless

That's fine, but I would like to be able to have sex with my husband for fun and not just to have kids. Not only would MY health suffer if I got pregnant every time, but so would the health of my kids.

But hey, I've never been a perfect Catholic.

And I'm kind of mystified at your old fashioned attitude.

I'll get over it, though.

If "you" choose to have sex, is it my responsibility to pay for "your" birth control methods or "your" responsibility. If it is my responsibility, let's do 1984, sterilize everybody, and let them get permits to become parents. Then we can decide what people are "healthy" enough to pass on their genes or other experimental techniques all in the name of 'healthcare'.

 

[Chris]

Bullshit.

That's you, son. Compare the stats with the industrialized nations and we clearly pay more for poorer lives and fewer years. You know it, I know it.

Want to bet on that?

Absolutely. How much do I win?

Life expectancy at birth (years) 1 Japan 82.6 79.0 86.1
2 Hong Kong 82.2 79.4 85.1
3 Switzerland 82.1 80.0 84.2
4 Israel 82.0 80.0 84.0
5 Iceland 81.8 80.2 83.3
6 Australia 81.2 78.9 83.6
7 Singapore 81.0 79.0 83
8 Spain 80.9 77.7 84.2
9 Sweden 80.9 78.7 83.0
10 Macau 80.7 78.5 82.8
11 France (metropolitan) 80.7 77.1 84.1
12 Canada 80.7 78.3 82.9
13 Italy 80.5 77.5 83.5
13 New Zealand 80.2 78.2 82.2
15 Norway 80.2 77.8 82.5
16 Austria 79.8 76.9 82.6
16 Netherlands 79.8 77.5 81.9
18 Martinique ( France) 79.5 76.5 82.3
18 Greece 79.5 77.1 81.9
20 Belgium 79.4 76.5 82.3
20 Malta 79.4 77.3 81.3
20 United Kingdom 79.4 77.2 81.6
20 Germany 79.4 76.5 82.1
20 U.S. Virgin Islands ( US) 79.4 75.5 83.3
25 Finland 79.3 76.1 82.4
26 Guadeloupe ( France) 79.2 76.0 82.2
27 Channel Islands ( Jersey and Guernsey) ( UK) 79.0 76.6 81.5
27 Cyprus 79.0 76.5 81.6
29 Ireland 78.9 76.5 81.3
30 Costa Rica 78.8 76.5 81.2
31 Puerto Rico ( US) 78.7 74.7 82.7
31 Luxembourg 78.7 75.7 81.6
31 United Arab Emirates 78.7 77.2 81.5
34 South Korea 78.6 75.0 82.2
34 Chile 78.6 75.5 81.5
36 Denmark 78.3 76.0 80.6
36 Cuba 78.3 76.2 80.4
36 United States 78.3 75.6 80.8

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[logical4u]

That's fine, but I would like to be able to have sex with my husband for fun and not just to have kids. Not only would MY health suffer if I got pregnant every time, but so would the health of my kids.

But hey, I've never been a perfect Catholic.

And I'm kind of mystified at your old fashioned attitude.

I'll get over it, though.

i don't care who does or doesn't use birth control.

i've got a teensy problem with the govt forcing churches to supply it against their beliefs.

i guess i'm old fashioned that way.

He wasn't forcing churches. Churches already had an exemption.

But when churches want to delve into insurance, hospitals, and other secular industries, they have to follow the rules that everyone else does.

Why, if the charities are providing a service that is in short supply or offer the service in an area where there isn't any other service? Are the libs saying the "poor" aren't important enough to receive medical care, unless, birth control is offered? Don't you think that stitches, broken bones, or serious illnesses occur in the "poor"? Should the Catholic hospitals close in those areas because they are standing with their principals? Will the dems be the ones that brag about forcing those charities away from the "poor"?

 

[francoHFW]

Pub dupes are pure ignorance...tyvm

 

[logical4u]

Doesn't stop them from repeating it over and over tho.

That might be because the churches (lots of them) consider it a First Amendment issue. The left, on the other hand, can't seem to get their tiny minds around such a complex issue and prefer to whine about Catholics and birth control.

Not one lefty on this board has explained, rationally, how the First Amendment does not apply. I have outlined why it does. And it has been ignored... y'all are too cowardly to admit that the government does not have the authority to define 'free exercise thereof'

It isn't a first Amendment issue. Nothing in this ruling restricts their ability to practice their base and silly superstitions.

They just can't impose them on other people. Which is how it should be.

The Catholic Church doesn't run schools or hospitals as a matter of faith, they do it to make money.

And once it becomes about the money, the faith isn't an issue anymore. Then it simply becomes a matter of commerce.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - someone said that once.

If the Catholic church was in it for the money, they would not need donations to keep the hospitals going, but don't let the truth get in your way of a good (NOT) story.

 

[JoeB131]

Laws are not supposed to be humane, they are supposed to be just. PETA just tried to sue Sea World for slavery because they use killer whales and dolphins in their shows. They think that is humane, doesn't make it any less stupid.

As for Natalie, she had recurrent leukemia, multiple organ failure, and a less than 40% chance of surviving 6 months if she had gotten a transplant. Most doctors interviewed back then would have been reluctant to perform the operation even if it had been approved. Frankly, it made more sense to skip her and give the liver to someone who would live longer.

For the record, under the IPAB guidelines in Obamacare Natalie would not have gotten approved for a transplant either. Since you just called Obamacare a humane law I guess that means not giving her the liver was the humane thing to do.

To be frank, I agree with you. It is both the humane and just thing to do not to waste precious resources and a liver on someone who is not even going to live a year. If, on the other hand, her parents wanted to pay for it out of their own pocket, go for it. That is actually what Obama said when he first started talking about a public option, so I guess that means I agree with him also.

Not sure where you are getting the figures on teh Sarkisyan issue, because several medical associations signed petitions to FORCE Cigna to pay for it.

And Cigna knuckled under to the public pressure, but by that time, Natalie was too far gone.

But, gee, I notice you side stepped the issue of Hanaway getting 73 million dollars in bonus money for doing this sort of shit. No why is that?

 

[JoeB131]

If the Catholic church was in it for the money, they would not need donations to keep the hospitals going, but don't let the truth get in your way of a good (NOT) story.

You mean the Church is very good at separating stupid people from their money? Well, they should be, they've been at it for 2000 years.

 

[JoeB131]

Actually, you are both wrong. You are assuming that health care spending directly contributes to longer life, which is ridiculous, and directly contradicted by Jake's claims. It is as stupid as arguing we need to spend more money on education because we spend more per student than any other nation and score lower on tests than they do. Examine the data, educate yourself, and come back and tell me why Jake is wrong.

Either that, or come back and tell me he is right again, and I will educate you myself. I have a few posts lying around here explaining why that is wrong if you prefer to cheat, go look them up.

Didn't say that at all. In fact, Japan and every OTHER industrialized country spends LESS per person than we do.

But here's what they do right.

1) They don't have an insurance industry running at at 33% profit margin sucking resources out paying for jet planes and 8 figure salaries.

2) They have universal coverage.

It's really kind of simple.

 

[logical4u]

It's not 'special interest' to defend the First Amendment Rights. It's not granting them anything other than a Right as provided by the Constitution. If you don't like the Constitution, fine. Have that debate... but right now, it is what it is and we have that right and that right is under attack from our own damned government. And they are not allowed to do that... it's unConstitutional.

This is why it's important to actually understand the first amendment. It's not meant to grant exemptions to religions that the rest of us can't exercise. It's not the Constitution I have issues with, but rather the boneheaded interpretation that it allows religions to pick and choose what laws they follow.

If the gov't is making exemptions to the laws for many different groups, why shouldn't the churches try for exemptions too?

The politicians have sold the Constitution to the highest bidder. Regulations are being used without 'checks and balances', and targeting specific groups. This is ironic that the same people that are demanding that the "rich" (a small percentage of the population) should be forced to pay 'unequal' taxes, are now targeting a second group (a larger percentage of the population), to be forced to 'conform' to the liberal way. No surprise they accuse others of doing what they are doing (forcing their ideals on others).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Laws are not supposed to be humane, they are supposed to be just. PETA just tried to sue Sea World for slavery because they use killer whales and dolphins in their shows. They think that is humane, doesn't make it any less stupid.

As for Natalie, she had recurrent leukemia, multiple organ failure, and a less than 40% chance of surviving 6 months if she had gotten a transplant. Most doctors interviewed back then would have been reluctant to perform the operation even if it had been approved. Frankly, it made more sense to skip her and give the liver to someone who would live longer.

For the record, under the IPAB guidelines in Obamacare Natalie would not have gotten approved for a transplant either. Since you just called Obamacare a humane law I guess that means not giving her the liver was the humane thing to do.

To be frank, I agree with you. It is both the humane and just thing to do not to waste precious resources and a liver on someone who is not even going to live a year. If, on the other hand, her parents wanted to pay for it out of their own pocket, go for it. That is actually what Obama said when he first started talking about a public option, so I guess that means I agree with him also.

Not sure where you are getting the figures on teh Sarkisyan issue, because several medical associations signed petitions to FORCE Cigna to pay for it.

And Cigna knuckled under to the public pressure, but by that time, Natalie was too far gone.

But, gee, I notice you side stepped the issue of Hanaway getting 73 million dollars in bonus money for doing this sort of shit. No why is that?

Several medical associations? Which ones? Be specific please.

As for where I got my data, try Wkipedia.

My guess is that Hanaway did not get a bonus for denying the care because it wouldn't actually have cost Cigna to pay for the transplant since it just administered the particular insurance that covered her. Don't let facts get in the way of your fauxrage though. Unlike you, I reallu dn't care how much the guy gets paid, so I won't comment on the amount.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Didn't say that at all. In fact, Japan and every OTHER industrialized country spends LESS per person than we do.

Never said you said it, I said you assume it. Learn to read.

You just proved it by pointing out the amount they spend.

But here's what they do right.

1) They don't have an insurance industry running at at 33% profit margin sucking resources out paying for jet planes and 8 figure salaries.

Good for them. Just an FYI, neither do we.

2) They have universal coverage.

Actually, they don't, they just have a tax system that pays for the coverage they do have, and a talking point that says it is universal. People always fall through the cracks, and I prefer a system that treats people over one that provides access to insurance.

It's really kind of simple.

Yes, it is, which is why I always get confused when people think words like access mean something.

 

[logical4u]

I'm sure there are.

I knew a gal once who stopped taking her pills because her jerkwad boyfriend wasn't making good on her promises to marry her. An abortion later, she still didn't figure it out.

But you know what, if we apply that standard, insurance companies could cut people who fail to lose weight, fail to stop smoking, fail to stop drinking... why not?

Gee, I don't know, could it be because the fucking shit stain law known as Obamacare makes it illegal to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions?

Idiot.

You mean actually having laws that are HUMANE?

Heaven forbid.

You really allowing kids to die of cancer because it was a pre-existing condition- which is what the insurance companies were doing before the AHA - was a good thing? Really?

Frankly, instead of being wrapped around the axle about the 300 in birth control pills, you should be wrapped around the axle that Hanaway, the CEO of Cigna who let Natalie Sarkisyan die becasue they wouldn't pay for a liver transplant, got a 73 million dollar severance package for pulling that kind of crap.

Isn't it the liberals that are "all about evolution"/"survival of the fitest?
If single patients can seriously damage an insurance company due to the high cost of treatments (whatever the disease), doesn't that company have the responsibility to stop itself from going broke (that is why the insurance companies have "caps") and leaving thousands without care? I know, you have a name and a sob story, but that does not change cold hard facts. If companies go broke for healthcare and there are none left, doesn't that hurt thousands that were relying on that care?

 

[Conservative]

It isn't a first Amendment issue. Nothing in this ruling restricts their ability to practice their base and silly superstitions.

They just can't impose them on other people. Which is how it should be.

The Catholic Church doesn't run schools or hospitals as a matter of faith, they do it to make money.

And once it becomes about the money, the faith isn't an issue anymore. Then it simply becomes a matter of commerce.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" - someone said that once.

You are obviously a catholic hater, so your opinions on this are meaningless... not to mention inaccurate.

 

[bripat9643]

If the Catholic church was in it for the money, they would not need donations to keep the hospitals going, but don't let the truth get in your way of a good (NOT) story.

You mean the Church is very good at separating stupid people from their money? Well, they should be, they've been at it for 2000 years.

So has the government. It has been at it for 5000 years.