Vermont passing a law to provide healthcare to its residents

[Alaris]

Speaking of never quitting, you (and only you) and the doctors present at the time are the one who believes the child will die anyway.

Corrected it for you... see below.

At issue is Obama’s opposition to Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection, even if doctors believe it could not survive.

Obama opposed the 2001 and 2002 "born alive" bills as backdoor attacks on a woman’s legal right to abortion (...)

Whether opposing "born alive" legislation is the same as supporting "infanticide," however, is entirely a matter of interpretation. That could be true only for those, such as Obama’s 2004 Republican opponent, Alan Keyes, who believes a fetus that doctors give no chance of surviving is an "infant." It is worth noting that Illinois law already provided that physicians must protect the life of a fetus when there is "a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support."

What sort of monster are you, to decide that since children can't survive even if we feed them and keep them warm, then they we should shorten their suffering?

Corrected it for you.

When it comes to the fate of an aborted fetus that is unlikely to survive even with life support, I can't say that I care either way. Really. It's just not an important issue for me.

rather than just collection agencies nagging her on the phone?

Yeah, I can see it. She gets the phone call. She takes the money, and moves to a different city under a new name. Hey, she can afford it.

The rest is not worth my time.

And since we're off-topic, something to bring us back to topic:

Q: Is health care better in Canada?
Is health care better in Canada than in the U.S., or is it true when they say universal coverage leads to long waits and a lower quality of care?

A: Wait times are longer in Canada, but health and doctor quality don't seem to suffer.
It is true that wait times for physician appointments and non-emergency surgery tend to be longer in Canada, which has a government-funded, universal health care system, than in the United States. A study by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonpartisan research foundation that promotes improved health care access and quality, showed that 57 percent of adults in Canada who needed a specialist said they waited more than four weeks for an appointment, versus only 23 percent who said so in the U.S. For emergency physician visits, 23 percent of Canadians and 30 percent of Americans said they could get in to see the doctor the same day, but 23 percent of Americans and 36 percent of Canadians waited more than six days. Wait times for elective and non-emergency surgery were even more disparate: Thirty-three percent of Canadians reported a wait time of more than four months, but only 8 percent of Americans had to wait that long. In another study, 27 percent of Canadians said that waiting times were their biggest complaint about their health system, versus only 3 percent of Americans. In October 2007, the Fraser Institute, a Canada-based libertarian think tank, reported that Canadians waited an average of 18.3 weeks between seeing a general practitioner and getting surgery or treatment.

However, on most measures of patient-reported physician quality, Canada comes out slightly ahead of the U.S. The Commonwealth Fund report shows somewhat fewer reported physician errors, lab errors, medication errors and duplicate tests north of the border, and Canadians report more satisfaction with their doctors. General health is also better up north, according to the World Health Organization: Life expectancy and healthy life expectancy are both higher in Canada; infant mortality is lower, and maternal mortality is significantly lower. There are fewer deaths from non-communicable diseases, cardiovascular diseases and injuries in Canada, though marginally more deaths from cancer. It's not clear how much of the divergence is attributable to medical care, rather than other standard-of-living differences between the two countries. (For instance, according to the United Nations' Human Development Index, Canada has a much higher school enrollment rate than the U.S., though it also has a lower GDP per capita.) But these statistics simply don't support the notion that universal, single-payer health care is crippling the health of Canadian citizens compared with that of U.S. citizens.

Both countries, however, score low on health measures compared with other industrialized nations. In the Commonwealth Fund’s overall ranking of health system performance, Canada came in fifth and the U.S. came in sixth, out of six countries. On the other hand, the WHO's 2000 World Health Report gave Canada a slightly better review, ranking it 30th for overall health system performance – above three of the other countries from the Commonwealth study (Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.) but below the other two (the U.K. and Germany). All of these countries, except the U.S., have publicly funded health care, as does every major country in the WHO's top ten.

Pre-emptive reply to J: feel free to say that factcheck is partisan, but this is info that should be relatively easy to verify.

[jmervyn]

Corrected it for you... see below.

Interesting; I cited the explicit language in the Act at the time, and you cite a Soros-funded spin outlet. Yeah, you're no hate-blinded zombie.

Corrected it for you.

See, the proper phrase would be, "I can't defend my inhuman savagery, so I'll just pretend you're talking about something different."

When it comes to the fate of an aborted fetus that is unlikely to survive even with life support, I can't say that I care either way. Really. It's just not an important issue for me.

Yeah, considering that no matter how often you rephrase and falsely characterize the underlying fact of the matter, I <know> that human life isn't an important issue for you. That's kind of the point, innit - that you zombies <do> consider "punished with a baby" as a sound belief? Plus, I don't recall if or how quickly you jumped on-board the "OMG the fascists think miscarriage is MURDER" regarding the Acts in Utah or Tennessee, but I'm quite certain that you would.

You show very little skepticism when it's something you want to believe in. More on that below.

Yeah, I can see it. She gets the phone call. She takes the money, and moves to a different city under a new name. Hey, she can afford it.

That's pretty much why you hire collection agencies; they're pretty good at tracking people despite name changes. I know because I've used their tools before.

The rest is not worth my time.

Of course not. That's because you <still> can't defend yourself.

Pre-emptive reply to J: feel free to say that factcheck is partisan, but this is info that should be relatively easy to verify.

You mean, like I did at the time with Obama's infanticide act, which you promptly ignored? I'm assuming the citation you made is of the same high quality as their "impartial" consideration of Romneycare? Given that factcheck frequently reported that Obama was not trying to engineer a single-payer system, when he has explicitly said that was his objective on more than one occasion (at least one of which is on tape), you'll pardon me for discounting pretty much anything you quote from the group he previously sat on the board of and which his pal Bill Ayers still influences.

By the way, I like how you cut out the part mentioning the complaints about one of the primary sources (2000 WHO report). See, if <I> had deliberately cut information from a citation, you'd be screaming about how evil and dishonest I am - but I'm SURE you were just trying to save keystrokes. Just as you were doubtless trying to save keystrokes in identifying one of the other primary sources for the report... but you don't want to say, “Liberal think tank, headed by single-payer advocate, Obamacare activist, and former Carter official, says America has worst health care.”, now do you?

If you want specifics, I can easily show the selection bias in your example.

1. Your citation claims greater patient satisfaction, lower errors, &c. but fails to identify the data set (around 1400 polled, the UK being about double that). Even assuming that the "Commonwealth Fund" is providing honest accounting, which I couldn't assume if you gave me a pony to do, this is a comparison between systems with massively different footprints. For all we know, and given what is known about The Commonwealth Fund I think it extremely likely, they compared 1400 patients in Montreal with 1400 patients in Montana.
2. Your beloved site cite doesn't talk about "right care", as in whether people got the treatment they needed. They just wave that off as "It's not clear how much of the divergence is attributable to medical care, rather than other standard-of-living differences between the two countries." Isn't it? Stossel had no problem shredding their claims, particularly given that the first component was nothing but a phone survey of patient 'feelings'. And after all, such phone surveys as they conduct are renowned for accuracy, aren't they?
3. The Commonwealth Fund report was an amalgamation of the phone survey with the WHO report which you so unintentionally failed to note was questionable. As both of the journalists I've cited identified, the WHO report placed the U.S. as ranking only slightly above Cuba for health care. It has been thoroughly debunked, and only idiots or socialists continue to pretend it is credible. I didn't think you were an idiot, previously.
4. The rankings are more or less fabricated. "Equity" ranks equally with "right care", so having your report is printed on a computer is as important as receiving proper care.

Regardless, comparing apples with oranges and then picking out the juicy bits pointedly ignores what I've dared you to explain (and if you want me to believe you, you'd do a better job quoting CATO guys than factcheck): you claim that people have a "right" to healthcare, and socializing our system will solve that supposedly unmet need.

That socializing around 20% of the U.S. economy will be an unmitigated disaster, if only on the basis of scale, doesn't seem to bother you - which I find odd, particularly given that the majority of the socialized systems are trying to figure out how the hell to undo what they've created.

I wonder what you'll find to dismiss Dr. Gratzer or Dr. Chaoulli, as well as Stossel and Praeger? Because, after all, everyone who isn't with you is against you.

And you're right, it was remarkably easy to "verify". Why couldn't you do it? Oh, riiiight...

[Alaris]

Anything prior to this is ignored as spin.

Interesting; I cited the explicit language in the Act at the time, and you cite a Soros-funded spin outlet. Yeah, you're no hate-blinded zombie.

Tell me again, why do we need to change the current law regarding this?

Since you're so involved in this, I'd think you can answer this.

By the way, I like how you cut out the part mentioning the complaints about one of the primary sources (2000 WHO report).

This part? I honestly didn't notice it. I should have left it in though, because although it's been criticized, it's not like other data sets provide a rosier picture.

The thing I left out in question, or at least, the relevant paragraphs:

The U.S. did come in first place in the responsiveness category, but didn’t do as well in other categories, such as who pays the costs and level of health, which was based on disability-adjusted life expectancy. Bialik also notes that the U.S. ranked much higher – 15th on "overall goal attainment"– before WHO factored in health care spending per capita. As we’ve written before, the U.S. spends much more per capita than other nations; in fact, it captured the No. 1 spot from WHO in that category. This cost-conscious measure dropped the U.S. to 37th.

Among the other stats on how the U.S. health care system and health stacks up internationally: A 2007 Commonwealth Fund report ranked the U.S. last out of six industrialized countries in health system performance, which included measures on quality, access, efficiency, equity of care and healthy lives. "Access" and "equity" measures are affected by the lack of universal health care. On life expectancy, the U.S. ranks 50th and below France, Canada, the U.K. and the European Union average, according to the CIA World Factbook. Infant mortality is also higher in the U.S. than all of those countries and more. A 2006 report on infant mortality by the nonprofit Save the Children showed the U.S. tied for next to last among industrialized countries.

Yeah, see... you can say that studies are biased all you want, the data we do have from any *reliable* source seem pretty consistent in saying that the US healthcare isn't worth its cost.

Or at least, the claim that our healthcare (or the average "socialized healthcare") is well below that of the US is completely unwarranted by data. I'm sure that our main problem, wait times, can easily be aleviated by letting the poors die outside the doors of the hospital... but I don't consider that a good choice.

But I'm an evil Godless atheist for all you care.

[jmervyn]

Anything prior to this is ignored as spin.

Well THAT's handy. You talking about your blathering, or mine?

Tell me again, why do we need to change the current law regarding this?

Since you're so involved in this, I'd think you can answer this.

Uh, probably because it's being flaunted, just like Keyes asserted? See, generally laws aren't passed unless they're either society trying to prohibit behavior which it disapproves of, or naked grabs for power by those who will benefit from such laws.

This part? I honestly didn't notice it.

Sure.

I should have left it in though, because although it's been criticized, it's not like other data sets provide a rosier picture.

Actually, they do so quite harshly, but I don't expect that we'll benefit from further beating this horse.

Yeah, see... you can say that studies are biased all you want, the data we do have from any *reliable* source seem pretty consistent in saying that the US healthcare isn't worth its cost.

Aside from your consideration of "reliable" as "reinforcing my bias", and your revision of your claim to be whining about the costs of U.S. care versus pretending a superior model without valid metrics of comparison, let's look at the canard you flipped out.

Cost. Cost of healthcare. First, for the sake of argument I'll discount my firm, established, and repeatedly proven belief that the gov't does nothing more cost-efficiently than the private sector. Why is it that, when considering the need to cover those who theoretically are unable to help themselves, the cost is always clung to as substantiating the claim?

Well, first and foremost it's because of your false belief that you shouldn't have to pay for what you get - the same sort of false assertion when you lefties whinge about the costs of the U.S. Dept. of Defense. If you have the best in the world, chances are you're paying for it.

Secondly, here's a fine discussion of the point.

Set aside the second part of that claim (Americans do, in fact, enjoy significant returns on their healthcare spending) and concentrate on the first. It is true, unquestionably, that the United States spends more as a share of its economy on healthcare than do most other countries. Why is that inherently problematic? The United States spends more on lots of goods and services than do other countries, and spends a lot less on some, too. Relatively speaking, the United States spends much more of its collective income on information technology, and much less on food, than do Haiti, Rwanda, or the alleged economic powerhouse that is the People's Republic of China, for that matter.

Does that mean that the Haitians and Rwandans are getting a much better deal on their laptops and Internet routers than we are? Does it mean that Chinese peasants are eating better? Probably not. The truth is that, as societies become wealthier, it takes much less of their income to cover things like food and shelter; with much more disposable income to dispose of (and Americans, with our low savings rate, do dispose of our disposable income), wealthy societies will tend to consume more entertainment, travel, education, professional services, and the like. Healthcare is a service that is in very high demand - when you need it, you need it. Americans' high level of healthcare spending is not evidence that we are getting ripped off; it's evidence that we are a rich country.

Why would there be some metaphysically "correct" portion of GDP to spend on healthcare? The answer, of course, is that there isn't, just as there is no metaphysically correct level of spending on food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, bubblegum, campaign commercials, or any other item of consumption that might come to the interest of the powers in Washington.

One might as easily point out that the United States spends far more on education than do most other countries - significantly more than do Japan or Korea. And it would be difficult to argue convincingly that we are getting better results than the Japanese or the Koreans. But when it comes to education spending, the argument is precisely the opposite of that made for healthcare reform; no amount of spending on education is ever considered too much. It is impossible to imagine Barack Obama telling a joint session of Congress that we, as a nation, spend too much of our GDP on education, and that we should prune ourselves back to the level of spending seen in Singapore, which gets a very good education bang for its buck.

Why the discrepancy? The politics is obvious: U.S. education consists of expropriating money from the private sector and transferring it to the public - since almost all education in the United States is public education. For healthcare the cashflow vector is reversed: even before ObamaCare, more than half of all U.S. healthcare spending was done by the government, but the parties cashing the checks are mostly private businesses: doctors, hospitals, pharmaceutical medical-device manufacturers, and the like. President Obama is not going to tell the teachers' unions that America is spending too much money on them, but he's happy to tell that to doctors and medicine-makers.

Or at least, the claim that our healthcare (or the average "socialized healthcare") is well below that of the US is completely unwarranted by data. I'm sure that our main problem, wait times, can easily be aleviated by letting the poors die outside the doors of the hospital... but I don't consider that a good choice.

Not "well below", just inferior. That's <why> y'all practice "health tourism" and then deny it exists. As for letting the poor die, if you hadn't noticed, that's been happening - though more markedly in the U.K. than Canada, perhaps because the British don't have a friendly neighbor who picks up their slack.

But I'm an evil Godless atheist for all you care.

Well, you're a Canadian. And you are Godless. Maybe the latter can be fixed.

************************************
P.S. if Lensor's around, I'd like to hear his reaction to this chapter.

[Alaris]

Well THAT's handy. You talking about your blathering, or mine?

Anything that is baseless. I was referring to yours specifically, though I admit my share.

Uh, probably because it's being flaunted, just like Keyes asserted?

No, just no. This won't do at all. If you are so against it, why exactly are you against it. What does the current law lack, exactly, that needs revision?

See, generally laws aren't passed unless they're either society trying to prohibit behavior which it disapproves of, or naked grabs for power by those who will benefit from such laws.

Still waiting for info to decide which one it is in this case.

Actually, they do so quite harshly, but I don't expect that we'll benefit from further beating this horse.

At least you agree that the data stacks against your side. That should settle the issue... except... it won't... will it?

Aside from your consideration of "reliable" as "reinforcing my bias", and your revision of your claim to be whining about the costs of U.S. care versus pretending a superior model without valid metrics of comparison, let's look at the canard you flipped out.

I knew it.

Before going further, I'd like to say that no study is ever perfect. That does not give you the right to ignore the best data we have on the issue because it does not conform to your beliefs.

Cost. Cost of healthcare. First, for the sake of argument I'll discount my firm, established, and repeatedly proven belief that the gov't does nothing more cost-efficiently than the private sector.

That made me lol. Typical J.

it's because of your false belief that you shouldn't have to pay for what you get

But, I do want to pay for what I get. I pay for healthcare via the gov. I'm happy with that. But you keep ignoring that for some logical fallacy reason.

Secondly, here's a fine discussion of the point.

Nice discussion. Is it purely speculation, or is there data to back it up?

Not "well below", just inferior.

Inferior in many areas. Despite higher costs. Oh wait, that's the US, not Canada.

The data goes against your claims again, J.

That's <why> y'all practice "health tourism" and then deny it exists.

A relatively minor point compared to everything else. I admit that the US is probably better than Canada in healthcare for the rich.

If you had said that you don't care about the poor dying because Darwin or something, then I'd respect that opinion. Not that I agree with it, but it's a fine point of view to have.

As for letting the poor die, if you hadn't noticed, that's been happening

Yes, in the US more than in Canada apparently.

Well, you're a Canadian. And you are Godless. Maybe the latter can be fixed.

I have nothing against Americans, except for the corruption but it's worse elsewhere anyway so I won't get too picky.

As for being Godless, I'll wait until we figure out which God is the correct one to worship. I'd rather have none than picking one randomly.

[Erasmus]

"Obamacare is Socialism"

So? A lot of our programs are socialist programs, doesn't mean we have a socialist economy but rather a mixed economy. I wonder if people even know what the word means since they throw the word around as though it automatically means it's bad. It's become an emotionally charged term for the ignorant and stupid.

[jmervyn]

No, just no. This won't do at all. If you are so against it, why exactly are you against it. What does the current law lack, exactly, that needs revision?

You could probably ask Nurse Stanek. The current law was being circumvented or ignored, as the previous discussion, as well as her testimony showed. My guess was that doctors performing partial and whole birth abortions were arbitrarily claiming that the infant couldn't survive, in order to avoid any difficult questions regarding their procedure - hence the live, viable babies being dumped in the trash.

Or are you trying to claim this never happens, despite testimony of a variety of individuals from a variety of states as Nurse Stanek further identified? I know you're a supporter of people like Pendergraft, Brigham, Carhart, and Gosnell, but you really ought to recognize that your false word game is easily seen through. You'd be far better off trying for the argument used by Barbara Boxer and Michelle Obama - that a child isn't legally a child until its parents decide it is. Of course, that validates the inference of your monstrosity, as it's the same sort of argument used to de-legitimize human rights in other venues, but at least you'd be logically consistent.

Still waiting for info to decide which one it is in this case.

Well, my bet is obviously on the former; despite your support for infanticide you're not profiting from it - though there were allegations that this was more of a leftist "don't let anything remotely associated with Roe v. Wade come to court!" issue.

For giggles, and not exactly apropos -

At least you agree that the data stacks against your side. That should settle the issue... except... it won't... will it?

Because, of course, I never agreed and stated the opposite. Really, you have some serious chutzpah to claim I'm making poor arguments and then make an artless play like this.

Before going further, I'd like to say that no study is ever perfect. That does not give you the right to ignore the best data we have on the issue because it does not conform to your beliefs.

If a telephone survey and a debunked report are the best data you have, you're in a world of hurt.

But, I do want to pay for what I get. I pay for healthcare via the gov. I'm happy with that. But you keep ignoring that for some logical fallacy reason.

Let's not bring my phallus into this (you'd lose) - you're happy with it because you've never encountered failure when your system was stressed. When you get older, I fully expect you to be seeking care on my side of the border - assuming we've not exchanged healthcare systems, which seems entirely likely at this point. Your system is trying to privatize, at the same time mine is trying to socialize.

Nice discussion. Is it purely speculation, or is there data to back it up?

He's got citations, if that's what floats your boat - they're by chapter, IIRC. The fact that you demand data for what amount to truisms is pretty funny, too.

Inferior in many areas. Despite higher costs. Oh wait, that's the US, not Canada.

The data goes against your claims again, J.

Which data was that? Oh, right, the debunked WHO data which evaluates health care quality by degree of socialism. Sorry, I forgot that you don't have a leg to stand on and so have to repeat falsehoods.

A relatively minor point compared to everything else. I admit that the US is probably better than Canada in healthcare for the rich.

And yet again, your fundamental ignorance shines through. When you have a 'rich' system, the sneered at 'trickle down' is inherent - where if you have a 'just enough' system like yours, then there's no multiplying effect possible. Now, you can admit that the reason your system can get away with minimal care is that you have an obese, generous neighbor you leech off of in a variety of ways, in this case medical largesse, but somehow I doubt you want to do so.

So let's see - <if> your care is so smugly superior, why don't your doctors lead in fields of medical technology or other advancements? Why do people like tinpot European Union types flee to Walter Reid (essentially our best "socialized" hospital, heavily invested in private providers) and not whatever your best hospital is? Why aren't <your> medical services the first demanded in countries suffering from what-have-you?

Yes, in the US more than in Canada apparently.

Ignoring the falsehood, you additionally dismiss multi-month wait times as immaterial. See, in the U.S., you'd be treated quickly regardless of your insurance status - maybe you won't get the better doctor, and maybe you'll be sent to a collection agency to pay them off for having saved your life. But in Canada, your surgery that has to occur in under a month will just have to wait until your turn comes up. Sorry. You want to bring up life expectancy, but when you do, you can't afford to have the statistic picked apart - because it reveals that for the scope of our system (treating all comers), we make yours look feeble.

I have nothing against Americans, except for the corruption but it's worse elsewhere anyway so I won't get too picky.

Sure you do. You're a socialist.

As for being Godless, I'll wait until we figure out which God is the correct one to worship. I'd rather have none than picking one randomly.

So you spite the forest for the trees. Sad. I'll pray for you.

[David Holtzman]

It remains an ocean-sized drop. Otherwise you wouldn't know the trade phrase "MedMal" nor would it be something that has lobbyists protecting it so ferociously.

Yes, it must be big otherwise I wouldn't have heard of it. I mean, what sort of law student learns a legal term!

Did you know we already do so?

No we don't. The GI bill doesn't count as us subsidizing medical costs.

That's very likely, but you still avoid facing the fact that the insurance industry, supercharged by litigation, is the core facet responsible for the industry distortion. As I previously identified, one only need look at the costs associated with medical procedure outside the norm to recognize how bad an influence this is.

We did look at the costs. Not only did all insurance amount to a mere 4% of the total, that included all forms of insurance. MedMal is certainly smaller and likely substantially so.

[jmervyn]

Yes, it must be big otherwise I wouldn't have heard of it. I mean, what sort of law student learns a legal term!

Oh, come on, it's a common phrase. I knew it, and you sneer constantly at my grasp of the law.

No we don't. The GI bill doesn't count as us subsidizing medical costs.

Not the reference. I have personal knowledge of at least two program variants, and there's apparently a wad of others. You can write them off as being 'in trade', but they remain subsidies. Do better research.

We did look at the costs. Not only did all insurance amount to a mere 4% of the total, that included all forms of insurance. MedMal is certainly smaller and likely substantially so.

I am referring to the fact that the insurance mechanism causes severe distortions in the market, not the monies actually going into the pockets of insurance executives (which is staggering, even if you're insisting on considering 4% of 20% of the U.S. economy as 'mere').

[Alaris]

My guess was that doctors performing partial and whole birth abortions were arbitrarily claiming that the infant couldn't survive, in order to avoid any difficult questions regarding their procedure - hence the live, viable babies being dumped in the trash.

Then the law doesn't need to be changed. It needs to be enforced.

Well, my bet is obviously on the former

Bet away. The pro-life klan says hi.

If a telephone survey and a debunked report are the best data you have, you're in a world of hurt.

Better than relying on *your* impression tbh.

Also, make that several independent reports, thanks to the link you accused me of omitting.

I'll pray for you.

This just in. Prayer does nothing. Thanks for the thought though.