Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

From Aetna, for pre-existing conditions on he and his wife. Worst thing on the medical history was both using HBP medications, he 53, she 59.

Now the thing that makes this posting material here, at least in my opinion, is that when he left my office, he commented "this is what we get because of Obama."




Discuss;

death panels.

Forced coverage.

I can't say for certain that it's Obama's fault, but what IS his fault is not living up to his pledge to effectively communicate what was in the new legislation - there will always be some people who never get it, but most people should if it has been explained properly. There are a lot of incumbents right now studying the plan they voted on to find out what's in it.

Wedgebuster wrote:From Aetna, for pre-existing conditions on he and his wife. Worst thing on the medical history was both using HBP medications, he 53, she 59.

Now the thing that makes this posting material here, at least in my opinion, is that when he left my office, he commented "this is what we get because of Obama."




Discuss;

Yes, Obama got a piece of crap bill passed that still enables insurance companies to fail in their obligations.

We're the only industrialized nation where basic health insurance is for-profit.

kalm wrote: ...Yes, Obama got a piece of crap bill passed that still enables insurance companies to fail in their obligations.

We're the only industrialized nation where basic health insurance is for-profit.

native wrote:

kalm wrote: ...Yes, Obama got a piece of crap bill passed that still enables insurance companies to fail in their obligations.

We're the only industrialized nation where basic health insurance is for-profit.

That's one thing I really appreciate about both Kalm & AZ. They won't stick blindly by something when they see the error in their ways.

native wrote:

kalm wrote: ...Yes, Obama got a piece of crap bill passed that still enables insurance companies to fail in their obligations.

We're the only industrialized nation where basic health insurance is for-profit.

Native, can you please explain why the US is the outlier on this graphic?

You should know that the US "dot" has moved right, and is closer to $8000 on the x-axis with no real change in the y.

00bluehen wrote:

native wrote:

Native, can you please explain why the US is the outlier on this graphic?

You should know that the US "dot" has moved right, and is closer to $8000 on the x-axis with no real change in the y.

Are you trying to say that Health Care Spending is the SOLE factor in Life Expectancy???

It's one of them, Hoagie. We've deified doctors way too much.

00bluehen wrote:Native, can you please explain why the US is the outlier on this graphic?

You should know that the US "dot" has moved right, and is closer to $8000 on the x-axis with no real change in the y.

Life expectancy has little to do with the cost of healthcare. They are more related by the fact that poor countries naturally have a lower life expectancy, ones in which health care isn't just less expensive... it's simply not available.

As for the costs, places like Japan are being CRUSHED by the cost of their healthcare. That graphic tells maybe 30% of the story.

Cap'n Cat wrote:It's one of them, Hoagie. We've deified doctors way too much.

Lifestyle is most likely the number one factor in life expectancy...so to solely bring up health care costs in this discussion is a FAIL...

Of course there are other factors involved in life expectancy. The point of that graph is that we're spending MORE to live FEWER YEARS than other industrialized countries. How does that equate? What's the rationale behind that?

Industrialized countries on the graph are fairly well depicted. Britain, Canada, Japan, Germany all have higher expectancies and lower overall healthcare expenditures. Again, all I'm looking for is rationale here. Not making an argument...yet.

Cap'n...can you clarify that deification of doctors comment?

Col Hogan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:It's one of them, Hoagie. We've deified doctors way too much.

Lifestyle is most likely the number one factor in life expectancy...so to solely bring up health care costs in this discussion is a FAIL...

The overall value of US Healthcare (which, if you want a mathematical definition of "value", is defined as years of life gained per dollar spent) remains a major issue surrounding healthcare reform...at least in the AMA/ACP's eyes. Ergo, healthcare costs are entirely relevant to this discussion.

00bluehen wrote:

native wrote:

Native, can you please explain why the US is the outlier on this graphic?

You should know that the US "dot" has moved right, and is closer to $8000 on the x-axis with no real change in the y.

a) Free health care for illegals
b) McDonalds/Burger King/Chilis/TGI Fridays/Buffalo Wild Wings
c) Phillip Morris & the Tobacco Industry
d) Obesity
e) Lack of exercise
f) Stress at being the country that leads the free world

00bluehen wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Lifestyle is most likely the number one factor in life expectancy...so to solely bring up health care costs in this discussion is a FAIL...

The overall value of US Healthcare (which, if you want a mathematical definition of "value", is defined as years of life gained per dollar spent) remains a major issue surrounding healthcare reform...at least in the AMA/ACP's eyes. Ergo, healthcare costs are entirely relevant to this discussion.

We can spend BILLIONS more on healthcare...if people continue to eat unhealthy...not exercise...avoid healthcare until it's too late...speed and drive recklessly...(and I could go on, but you get the point)...then life expectancy will continue to be low...

On the other hand, I don't want to live in some of those countries where government is the all-powerful nanny socialist state...

00bluehen wrote:Of course there are other factors involved in life expectancy. The point of that graph is that we're spending MORE to live FEWER YEARS than other industrialized countries. How does that equate? What's the rationale behind that?

Industrialized countries on the graph are fairly well depicted. Britain, Canada, Japan, Germany all have higher expectancies and lower overall healthcare expenditures. Again, all I'm looking for is rationale here. Not making an argument...yet.

So in one breath you say you realize that they are not completely related and then go on to ask why we spend more to live fewer years and how does that equate... IT DOESN'T because they aren't even close to 100% related. THIS has a lot more to do with it than anything...

Obesity rate by country...
# 1 United States: 30.6%
# 2 Mexico: 24.2%
# 3 United Kingdom: 23%
# 4 Slovakia: 22.4%
# 5 Greece: 21.9%
# 6 Australia: 21.7%
# 7 New Zealand: 20.9%
# 8 Hungary: 18.8%
# 9 Luxembourg: 18.4%
# 10 Czech Republic: 14.8%
# 11 Canada: 14.3%
# 12 Spain: 13.1%
# 13 Ireland: 13%
# 14 Germany: 12.9%
# 15 Portugal: 12.8%
# 15 Finland: 12.8%
# 17 Iceland: 12.4%
# 18 Turkey: 12%
# 19 Belgium: 11.7%
# 20 Netherlands: 10%

http://www.theindychannel.com/health/25 ... etail.html

Nearly 17 percent of U.S. medical costs can be blamed on obesity, according to new research that suggests the nation's weight problem may be having close to twice the impact on medical spending as previously estimated.

00bluehen wrote:The overall value of US Healthcare (which, if you want a mathematical definition of "value", is defined as years of life gained per dollar spent) remains a major issue surrounding healthcare reform...

Not true. Quality of life is a HUGE part of health care expenditures. Think about hip replacement surgury. Does it extend your life expectancy? NO.

00bluehen wrote:Cap'n...can you clarify that deification of doctors comment?

I'll clarify it for you: It means he's pissed as HELL he wasn't smart enough to BECOME one.

00bluehen wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
Lifestyle is most likely the number one factor in life expectancy...so to solely bring up health care costs in this discussion is a FAIL...

The overall value of US Healthcare (which, if you want a mathematical definition of "value", is defined as years of life gained per dollar spent) remains a major issue surrounding healthcare reform...at least in the AMA/ACP's eyes. Ergo, healthcare costs are entirely relevant to this discussion.

Great discussion topic, as long as you do not want to redistribute wealth to acheive "progress." If that's the case, more relevant questions would be, "how can we apply to politicians the same legal standards for theft that we apply to thieves?"

Another great question to ponder is, why is Lasik so effective and cheap (under $1,000) when it is not controlled by the government and it operates for profit in a free enterprise environment?

native wrote:

00bluehen wrote: The overall value of US Healthcare (which, if you want a mathematical definition of "value", is defined as years of life gained per dollar spent) remains a major issue surrounding healthcare reform...at least in the AMA/ACP's eyes. Ergo, healthcare costs are entirely relevant to this discussion.

Great discussion topic, as long as you do not want to redistribute wealth to acheive "progress." If that's the case, more relevant questions would be, "how can we apply to politicians the same legal standards for theft that we apply to thieves?"

Another great question to ponder is, why is Lasik so effective and cheap (under $1,000) when it is not controlled by the government and it operates for profit in a free enterprise environment?

Lasik is the equivalent of spraying Bactine on a scraped knee, Chumley. It shouldn't cost $50!

And, you get no credibility with your theft and theives rhetoric. Just another Teabagger wannabe Conk talking head. The JBB of the poli board.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Lasik is the equivalent of spraying Bactine on a scraped knee, Chumley. It shouldn't cost $50!

Cap'n Cat wrote:

native wrote:
Great discussion topic, as long as you do not want to redistribute wealth to acheive "progress." If that's the case, more relevant questions would be, "how can we apply to politicians the same legal standards for theft that we apply to thieves?"

Another great question to ponder is, why is Lasik so effective and cheap (under $1,000) when it is not controlled by the government and it operates for profit in a free enterprise environment?

Lasik is the equivalent of spraying Bactine on a scraped knee, Chumley. It shouldn't cost $50!

And, you get no credibility with your theft and theives rhetoric. Just another Teabagger wannabe Conk talking head. The JBB of the poli board.

So much hot air, Cat...yet you never lift the discussion....


How is that???

Cap'n Cat wrote: ...Lasik is the equivalent of spraying Bactine on a scraped knee, Chumley....

We have all read your posts and seen your picture, Cap. You hadn't ought to be calling anyone else "Chumley."

Col Hogan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Lasik is the equivalent of spraying Bactine on a scraped knee, Chumley. It shouldn't cost $50!

And, you get no credibility with your theft and theives rhetoric. Just another Teabagger wannabe Conk talking head. The JBB of the poli board.

So much hot air, Cat...yet you never lift the discussion....


How is that???

My intent is not to lift the discussion, Hoagie. It is simply to gore the Conk beast at every turn.