Health Care Bill Passes House

[Ironslave]

^

LOL, honestly, you wonder how they can even think up something so random.

In all seriousness though, while the destruction of America financially will undoubtedly bring a lot of pain and will change the world dramatically, the sooner everything crumbles, the sooner people will be free. It's not going to be pretty, but nothing less will lead to the empire crashing and the people being free.

 

[Ironslave]

"Hefty fines are due from anyone found to have committed the heinous crime of not being a customer of a health insurance company. We will need to hire some 16,500 new IRS agents to police compliance with all these new mandates and administer various fines. So in government terms, this is also a jobs bill. Never mind that this program is also likely to cost the private sector some 5 million jobs." -Ron Paul


Healthcare Reform Passes by Ron Paul

 

[Ironslave]

The man speaks, listen.

 

[Oloz]

It is, and it really sucks.



No chance. From Australia: (Tim's country)

Colagiuri S, et al. The cost of overweight and obesity in Australia. Med J Aust. 2010 Mar 1;192(5):260-4.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare health care costs for normal-weight, overweight and obese Australians. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of 5-year follow-up data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle study, collected in 2004-2005. Data were available for 6140 participants aged >or= 25 years at baseline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct health care cost, direct non-health care cost and government subsidies associated with overweight and obesity, defined by both body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC). RESULTS: The annual total direct cost (health care and non-health care) per person increased from $1472 (95% CI, $1204-$1740) for those of normal weight to $2788 (95% CI, $2542-$3035) for the obese, however defined (by BMI, WC or both). In 2005, the total direct cost for Australians aged >or= 30 years was $6.5 billion (95% CI, $5.8-$7.3 billion) for overweight and $14.5 billion (95% CI, $13.2-$15.7 billion) for obesity. The total excess annual direct cost due to overweight and obesity (above the cost for normal-weight individuals) was $10.7 billion. Overweight and obese individuals also received $35.6 billion (95% CI, $33.4-$38.0 billion) in government subsidies. Comparing costs by weight change since 1999-2000, those who remained obese in 2004-2005 had the highest annual total direct cost. Cost was lower in overweight or obese people who lost weight or reduced WC compared with those who progressed to becoming, or remained, obese. CONCLUSION: The total annual direct cost of overweight and obesity in Australia in 2005 was $21 billion, substantially higher than previous estimates. There is financial incentive at both individual and societal levels for overweight and obese people to lose weight and/or reduce WC.


Sure, some elite athletes might eventually need health care for athletic related injuries, but say hypothetically, why should the guy who went through high school on the chess club and eventually becomes appointed to the board of a large, successful company be forced to pay for the knee surgeries of the guys on the football team who made his life hell in high school?


There is also one thing which has not even been discussed.... can anybody take a wild guess, what industries in heath care where the costs are plummeting yet the quality of care is soaring? For the answer, see this.

Lastly, this hasn't been discussed. But this bill which was passed is THE least transparent, most corrupt bill in the history of politics. The amount of back room deals, bribes, handouts, and shady tactics which went into getting this bill past are like nothing ever seen, regardless if you support the bill or not!

I thought the public was going to get 5 days to look at every bill, not 36 hours?

This bill has gotten to the point where it has nothing to do with giving health care for the people, it has to do with the democrats wanting this passed for the sake it it passing for their ego and nothing more. Pelosi even said that they had to pass the bill so people can "find out what is in it".


Again, this bill got to the point where they needed to pass it just to save face, nothing more.

LOL, how ridiculous was that statement by the creature from the black lagoon (Nancy Pelosi)? Why don't they just make every piece of legislation a "surprise?" I can imagine this for the next bills regarding amnesty for illegal aliens and cap and tax. "I'm not going to tell you whats in the bill til you vote on it!" What a joke.

 

[tim290280]

No chance. From Australia: (Tim's country)

Colagiuri S, et al. The cost of overweight and obesity in Australia. Med J Aust. 2010 Mar 1;192(5):260-4.

Sure, some elite athletes might eventually need health care for athletic related injuries, but say hypothetically, why should the guy who went through high school on the chess club and eventually becomes appointed to the board of a large, successful company be forced to pay for the knee surgeries of the guys on the football team who made his life hell in high school?

*sigh* You seem to have twisted my point completely around.

My point was very simple: everyone needs health care. Even healthy people will have a time in their lives when they will need health care, whether it be for a car crash or tooth infection, RSI or opticial adjustment. Without health care you literally have a section of society that will be forced into a cycle of poverty because of ill health. This creates another lower social class in society that will be a greater burden and blight on society than any cost of basic health care. I only have to point to regional areas of Australia with limited access to health care to prove this to be true. Let alone the number of destitute in the USA from the same (Vetnam Vets and their health care woes spring to mind, many other examples).

If you want to use Australia as an example of health care then it needs to be talked about in context rather than in one example (you've cited obesity). Our aging population is also cause for concern, as is the cost of medical care itself.
https://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/187_09_051107/arm11047_fm.pdf

Not to mention that the changes in cost of healthy living has changed:
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_01_010107/har10516_fm.pdf

And my point on sports injuries are not isolated to "elite athletes", and you would know this. It extends to every level of sport/fitness activity:
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

Sports injury experiences from the Western Australian sports injury cohort study
Caroline Finch 1 , 4 , Annette Da Costa 2 , Mark Stevenson 3 , Peter Hamer 5 Bruce Elliott 5

ABSTRACT

Objective: The Western Australian Sports Injury Study is the first prospective cohort study of sports injuries sustained during community-level sports participation in Australia.

Methods: The players were non-professional/non-elite participants of hockey, Australian football, basketball and netball from metropolitan Perth. Players completed a baseline questionnaire relating to their sports injury history, training practices, protective equipment use, demographic profile, general health and lifestyle factors. Sports participation and injury experiences were monitored by monthly telephone surveys over two consecutive five-month winter sporting seasons during 1997 and 1998.

Results: Of the 1,512 players recruited into the initial cohort, 966 (i.e. 64%) responded to at least 70% of the callback surveys over the two-year follow-up. Across all sports, the injury incidence rate was 16.1 injuries/ 1,000 exposure hours (both games and training). Injury rates were highest in Australian football and lowest in netball. Lower limb injuries were twice as common as those to the upper limb (67% vs. 31%). Three-quarters of injured players sought treatment from a health care practitioner.

Conclusions and implications: This is the first longitudinal study of injuries to community-based sports participants in Australia. Compared with elite sports participants, the risk of injury is relatively low. The results provide valuable direction for the design and conduct of further aetiological studies.

This has gotten to the point were they are proposing a national body to monitor sports injuries:
http://www.injuryupdate.com.au/images/research/NSIbody.pdf

There is also one thing which has not even been discussed.... can anybody take a wild guess, what industries in heath care where the costs are plummeting yet the quality of care is soaring? For the answer, see this.

I prefer this summary:
http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/360/9/849?andorexacttitleabs=and&SEARCHID=1&COLLECTION_NUM=17&hits=10&andorexactfulltext=and&FIRSTINDEX=100&resourcetype=HWCIT&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=100&resourcetype=HWCIT

I also think that once you compare health care models with an international standard you would see that there are better ways than the current methods. Most of the successful models on the lists I posted previously run some sort of a mix of private and public health care. Then the others are mostly public health care. Private has been shown to suck at covering everyone, I mean America has free clinics with thousands of people rocking up for basic dental care due to the lack of health insurance. America has more than double the population of Australia without any sort of health insurance.

Lastly, this hasn't been discussed. But this bill which was passed is THE least transparent, most corrupt bill in the history of politics. The amount of back room deals, bribes, handouts, and shady tactics which went into getting this bill past are like nothing ever seen, regardless if you support the bill or not!

I thought the public was going to get 5 days to look at every bill, not 36 hours?

I honestly don't care about the machinations of American politics. As far as I can tell the majority of laws in any country are passed with little thought by anyone involved, let alone the wider public. It is why they are written in an open-to-interpretation manner and why so many ammendments are made later.

 

[Ironslave]

*sigh* You seem to have twisted my point completely around.

My point was very simple: everyone needs health care. Even healthy people will have a time in their lives when they will need health care, whether it be for a car crash or tooth infection, RSI or opticial adjustment. Without health care you literally have a section of society that will be forced into a cycle of poverty because of ill health. This creates another lower social class in society that will be a greater burden and blight on society than any cost of basic health care. I only have to point to regional areas of Australia with limited access to health care to prove this to be true. Let alone the number of destitute in the USA from the same (Vetnam Vets and their health care woes spring to mind, many other examples).

I didn't twist it around at all. The quote was that "healthy people are just as likely to need health care." That is not the case. Sure, everyone needs some health care over a lifetime, but on average, unhealthy people need health care FAR FAR more than healthy people do, and it costs far more. Why should a healthy person be forced to pay for the health care of an unhealthy person?

Health care will ALWAYS be available because it is our most primary need. There will never be a society with no health care, there's always a market for it.

If you want to use Australia as an example of health care then it needs to be talked about in context rather than in one example (you've cited obesity). Our aging population is also cause for concern, as is the cost of medical care itself.
https://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/187_09_051107/arm11047_fm.pdf

So? The aging population does cause health care costs to increase, as does the fattening population. I'm not elderly or fat, this shouldn't be my problem in a free society.

Not to mention that the changes in cost of healthy living has changed:
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_01_010107/har10516_fm.pdf

The price of most things have also increased. You can easily eat healthy on a budget, a huge kg bag of oats costs a couple bucks and lasts for ages. Likewise with a box of chicken breasts, greens powder, cans of tuna, and many more. In the US anybody can walk into any Subway and get a foot long grilled chicken on whole wheat with tomatoes, pickles, green peppers, and other foods for $5. Yet, more people choose to go to McDonalds and get the Big Mac meal for the same price, or more, and a McFleurry ice cream to wash it down. A 2L carton of milk is increasing in price, and is more expensive than a 2L bottle of Pepsi, but there are many alternatives, and that doesn't stop the average person from getting the store bought box of pizza for $13 when they could get 20 cans of Tuna.

And my point on sports injuries are not isolated to "elite athletes", and you would know this. It extends to every level of sport/fitness activity:
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

Injuries do happen in sports, so what? That article cites that "16.1 injuries/ 1,000 exposure hours (both games and training)", which means that there was 1.6 injuries per 100 hours of sport, or 1 injury every 62.5 hours of sport. Of those "three quarters sought treatment from a health care practitioner", so in other words, 25% of those injuries just let it rest, and I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that a very large part of those 75% who did seek treatment could have just rested as well.

If I had to have guessed, I would have assumed that injuries were much more frequent and more debilitating than that, so thanks for proving my point that sports injuries in the grand scheme of things are minuscule


Further, it says that most injuries were in Australian football, a contact sport. Well duh. How many 30-60 year olds, with regards to the general population, do you see playing a brutally demanding sport like Australian football?

I still fail to understand why if someone rolls their ankle in a soccer game or separates a shoulder in a football game I should be forced to pay for their coverage, it's not my ankle or shoulder. If I crash my car, should they pay for my car repairs?

This has gotten to the point were they are proposing a national body to monitor sports injuries:
http://www.injuryupdate.com.au/images/research/NSIbody.pdf

That sounds like a great use of taxpayer money that will accomplish a lot of positive results for society.

I prefer this summary:
http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/360/9/849?andorexacttitleabs=and&SEARCHID=1&COLLECTION_NUM=17&hits=10&andorexactfulltext=and&FIRSTINDEX=100&resourcetype=HWCIT&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=100&resourcetype=HWCIT

Why? For one, is discusses Medicare, a government subsidy, and the costs for government programs almost always inflate over the years. Although again, this only strengthens my point. From the article:

Those in higher-spending regions, however, were much more likely than those in lower-spending regions to recommend discretionary services, such as referral to a subspecialist for typical gastroesophageal reflux or stable angina or, in another vignette, hospital admission for an 85-year-old patient with an exacerbation of end-stage congestive heart failure. And they were three times as likely to admit the latter patient directly to an intensive care unit and 30% less likely to discuss palliative care with the patient and family. Differences in the propensity to intervene in such gray areas of decision making were highly correlated with regional differences in per capita spending.

In other words, physicians in higher spending areas were much more likely to perform excess tests, and refer to another physician. Can anybody take a wild guess, under Obama care, where everyone is mandated to have health insurance, there is more government control, and more meddling with government and lawyers in between the doctor and the patient, are doctors going to be more liberal with excess costly tests and referrals, or less?

This is an EASY answer. Another inadvertent point for supporting my argument. :gaysign:

But the article doesn't discuss this. Why is health care essentially the only industry in the world in which this happens across the board? Why can I get a brand new PS3 slim with 120GB of storage, DVD/Blu Ray player, wireless internet, and whatever other amazing advances in speed/crispness of the product for $299 today.... while 15 years ago I could get the original Sony Playstation for, (you guessed it kids!), $299! In other words, the new technology absolutely demolishes the old technology, and they are able to release it for the same price! (cheaper, if you adjust for inflation!).

Same thing happens in every other competitive free market industry.

 

[tim290280]

^^ We are going in circles here because of your belief system. I do like how your belief system places so little value on anyone else and the impact they have on your life. Comes across as selfish

My numbers are solid, and you may think they furhter your point, but they don't really, I'm just presenting them in all their glory. My point still shows that everyone needs health care, regardless of their position in society. The fat person may be the one that keeps your lights on, the guy that busts his knee playing footy may never contribute anything to society. But I will point out that you have underestimated exactly how many hours of sport equals an injury. 1.67 injuries per hundred hours is an average of one injury per season of team sport (conservatively based upon estimates of various sports people in Australia play).

This means that being active and healthy means that you are statistically likely to require medical care once every year (assuming that you play a summer and winter sport or two seasons) and that in any 2 years you are likely to have minor medical treatment (ankle ligaments being the most common) and in a 5 year period you are likely to require major medical care (I'm not sure if I posted the surgery rates from injuries). I.e. play sport, you get injured, play long enough you'll need surgery.

 

[Ironslave]

^^ We are going in circles here because of your belief system.

Liberty?

I do like how your belief system places so little value on anyone else and the impact they have on your life. Comes across as selfish

Not at all. I contribute a lot to charity, and volunteer a lot of time. What I don't like is being forced by a big government to spend my money as they see fit rather than I see fit. Some of these funds in the new bill is going to be used to fund abortions (it isn't supposed to, but it will), why should a pro life religious person be forced to pay for these? I'd gladly help out any cause I feel is worthwhile, and I think I can do a better job spending my money than the government can.

There is nothing humanitarian about spending other people's money.

My numbers are solid, and you may think they furhter your point, but they don't really, I'm just presenting them in all their glory.

Sure they do. The rising health care cost one unquestionably does, it said that in certain area physicians were more likely to "recommend discretionary services" when the evidence wasn't particularly strong.

Regardless, no matter if you love only a single payer system for every last health procedure, or a completely free market, I ask again. With a system that involves more government meddling in between the doctor and patient with many lawyer right in the middle, will there be more expensive "elective" medical procedures, or less? It's an easy answer.

My point still shows that everyone needs health care, regardless of their position in society. The fat person may be the one that keeps your lights on, the guy that busts his knee playing footy may never contribute anything to society.

The point was "I like to flip the coin on this one and say that "healthy" people are just as likely to need health care." This is far from the case.

How many people in the general population are going to bust their knee? A VERY small percentage. A very small percentage play contact sports (even at the non-elite level), and your statistics show that even then the incidence of injury is low. Again though, it's not my knee. If he busts his car in an accident, should I pay for that too?

But I will point out that you have underestimated exactly how many hours of sport equals an injury. 1.67 injuries per hundred hours is an average of one injury per season of team sport (conservatively based upon estimates of various sports people in Australia play).

This means that being active and healthy means that you are statistically likely to require medical care once every year (assuming that you play a summer and winter sport or two seasons) and that in any 2 years you are likely to have minor medical treatment (ankle ligaments being the most common) and in a 5 year period you are likely to require major medical care (I'm not sure if I posted the surgery rates from injuries). I.e. play sport, you get injured, play long enough you'll need surgery.

Tim, you're reaching. I didn't underestimate anything, I still consider the injury incidence reported to be extremely low (and keep in mind, this is for sports, many of which require significant contact). I ask once again, what percent of the general public regularly plays contact sports?

I read the full text of the article, and I will quote this. "The majority of injured participants (74.5%) had moderate injuries and required health care attention. Only 3.8% required medical attention at a hospital emergency department.

That too, is even far lower than I expected, thanks again :music:

 

[tim290280]

^^LOL.

Contact sports are not the domain of injury. I myself did not require any contact to do my knee or my ankle. I did all of my hamstring injuries just running.

For example most ankle and knee injuries occur from cutting. You don't have to play contact sports to injure yourself.

Who said injury requires emergency admittance?? Using my own example, for my knee I went to a surgeon after referral from a GP, for my ankle I went to a podiatrist, for my shoulder I went to a sports GP. No emergency room involved in any of the major problems I've had.

I will also comment on this:

Not at all. I contribute a lot to charity, and volunteer a lot of time. What I don't like is being forced by a big government to spend my money as they see fit rather than I see fit

So what if you don't see fit to spend your donations on a very important issue? Who does this? You assume that something isn't important, but if it is then no money gets spent on it and we end up with a crap society. Thanks.

I see it daily in the lack of understanding and relevance that food production and agriculture has in the mainstream (to the point were we have entire sub-industries based around this ignorance). Nobody would aid rural infrustructure to keep agriculture going due to ignorance of its importance (because the farms alone can't do it, they need other surrounding services and critical mass). Under your model we all get to starve, rather than allowing a level of egalitarianism in the form of government.

Also please don't assume that I support large lefty style govt, becaue I don't. I also hate the way money is pissed away on useless things and is more about politician ego and social standing than actual progression of society.

 

[Oloz]

Groups exempt from new IRS tax in health bill... Those incarcerated, and illegal immigrants.

 

[Ironslave]

^^LOL.

Contact sports are not the domain of injury. I myself did not require any contact to do my knee or my ankle. I did all of my hamstring injuries just running.

For example most ankle and knee injuries occur from cutting. You don't have to play contact sports to injure yourself.

Tim, you're clinging on now for the sake of arguing. Someone is much more likely to become injured in a contact sport (as indicated in the study you posted which found like 3x higher injury rates for Australian football than netball.)

I ask again, how many people in the general population aged 30-60 really play team/contact sports? Very few. Your original comment was "healthy people are just as likely to require health care as unhealthy people." That's not true.

Who said injury requires emergency admittance?? Using my own example, for my knee I went to a surgeon after referral from a GP, for my ankle I went to a podiatrist, for my shoulder I went to a sports GP. No emergency room involved in any of the major problems I've had.

Tim, the stats were 1.6 injuries per 100 hours of sport, of those less than 4% required emergency care. If it's a very serious injury, such as a concussion, torn ACL, even separated shoulders, whatever, people go to the emergency room. This stat just means that of those 1.6 injuries per 100 hours, MAYBE what, 10% of those require physician care? This is actually far far less than I would have thought, and it demonstrates that sports injuries are NOTHING in the grand scheme of things with regards to total health care costs. Unhealthy people require MUCH more health care costs than healthy people do.

Why the hell should I be forced to pay for them?

So what if you don't see fit to spend your donations on a very important issue? Who does this? You assume that something isn't important, but if it is then no money gets spent on it and we end up with a crap society. Thanks.

Who decides it is important? You're suggesting that you know how to spend my money better than I do. I will once again ask this, since nobody still hasn't answered it, why I should pay for your (someone else's) health care, yet not for your car if you get in an accident or your house burns down?

You're suggesting that without subsidized health care society will crumble. This is NOT the case. People would not be left in the streets, costs for health care would PLUMMET, and physicians would help those in need where they could.

I see it daily in the lack of understanding and relevance that food production and agriculture has in the mainstream (to the point were we have entire sub-industries based around this ignorance). Nobody would aid rural infrustructure to keep agriculture going due to ignorance of its importance (because the farms alone can't do it, they need other surrounding services and critical mass). Under your model we all get to starve, rather than allowing a level of egalitarianism in the form of government.

Tim, you're now debating like Bulkboy. You literally, not putting words in your mouth, just suggested that "people will starve" without subsidized agriculture, which is just insane. How many thousands of years have people been able to exist without subsidized agriculture? Jim Rogers, one of the most well known (and brightest) investors there is, sees agriculture's future as among the brightest industry there is.

Also please don't assume that I support large lefty style govt, becaue I don't. I also hate the way money is pissed away on useless things and is more about politician ego and social standing than actual progression of society.

Tim, supporting health care for all is a major aspect of large lefty government. The amount of people needed to run such a government is massive. The IRS now has to hire 16,000 ish new IRS agents just to enforce this new health care policy. It's insane, the government is the worst thing to happen to health care.