Obamacare

[tw]

Originally Posted by plthijinx

you think maybe we could all chip in and buy an island to ship these people to?
i'm kidding!!!!!!

That solution is better than many promoted in our Congress. It is a reasonable option considering the political agendas currently promoted.

you're basically saying put me out in the street for "bring out your dead" instead of help me? nah man, i get what you mean, a darwinism effect if you will, but dude, really. humane.

First, the most humane attitude is to be blunt, logical, and unemotional. People die because so many would entertain their emotions like a child rather than ruthlessly deal with a reality like an adult.

You deserve death if our leaders could not bother to fix a world's worst medical system. If you end up dead, well, bad economics killed you. Being humane or charitable solves nothing. Emotions and charity do nothing to fix bad economics.

No acceptable reason for an ‘unemployed person unable to pay’. Every working system (so many different and working systems exist) means unemployed people can always pay their medical bills. You cannot pay only because our leaders worry more about their political agendas rather than fix the problem. When leaders cannot compromise, then you become an example of what must happen. People must die.

Why does America have some of the highest infant mortality rates? Because our economics are defective. Too many people entertain empathy, sympathy, games of liberal vs conservative, and humane conclusions rather than deal ruthlessly like an adult to fix what is only an economic problem. People stop dying when the ruthless finally want a solution. When people stop entertaining their feelings (also called a political agenda).

[regular.joe]

Highest infant mortality rates? Site please.

[regular.joe]

More on infant mortality rates.

[richlevy]

Someone still has to explain to me how we let it come to the point that Canada can purchase medicines from U.S. companies cheaper than the U.S. government can, because the U.S. government has been deliberately denied the ability to consolidate and negotiate better prices.

So that we must spend more of our tax dollars than is necessary.

Oh wait, I do know. It's called bribery.

[Lamplighter]

TW, Congratulations, that was great GMT timing in New Zealand

.

[Undertoad]

already posted in the "impeding changes" thread:

Spending more on health care increases the infant mortality rate

According to a 2002 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least a third of all infant mortality in the United States arises from complications of prematurity; other studies assert the figure is closer to half. Thus—at the risk of oversimplifying—infant mortality in the United States principally is a problem of premature birth, which today complicates just over one in 10 pregnancies.

To reduce infant mortality, then, we need to prevent premature births, and if that fails, improve care of premature babies once born. (Prematurity is also linked to other problems; for example, it's the leading cause of mental retardation and cerebral palsy in children.) But modern medicine isn't good at preventing prematurity—just the opposite. Better and more affordable medical care actually has worsened the rate of prematurity, and likely the rate of infant mortality, by making fertility treatment widespread.

[Undertoad]

And infant mortality rates are measured by percentage of live births, not percentage of people:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...mortality_rate

And the question typically posed isn't "Why is the US worst?" it's "Why is the US 48th and apparently all other first-world countries better?"

Infant mortality as a benchmark of quality of health care for a nation made sense in the 1950s, before fertility treatment.

Today the benchmark is only used to bash the US system.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Someone still has to explain to me how we let it come to the point that Canada can purchase medicines from U.S. companies cheaper than the U.S. government can, because the U.S. government has been deliberately denied the ability to consolidate and negotiate better prices.

Its Bush's fault. no, really it is.

[TheMercenary]

As long as it is overturned it matters not who is at fault.

[Lamplighter]

SCOTUS decision today - WOW !

[Lamplighter]

President Obama came on national TV this morning and spoke about the SCOTUS decision.
I've not yet found a video source to post here.

Once again, he identified the politics of the situation, but for perhaps the first time,
he laid out the specifics of the law in layman terms.

Atlanta Journal Constitution
Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Associated Press

Obama response to Supreme Court on health care

Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act
- the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago.
In doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America
- in the wealthiest nation on Earth - no illness or accident should lead to any family's financial ruin.

I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost.
That's how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington.
But that discussion completely misses the point.
Whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country
whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold it.

And because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans,
I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you.
<SNIP>

His presentation of the specifics in the law and the remainder
of his speech are in the link... I highly recommend it to everyone.
.
.
.

[classicman]

Here ya go...

[classicman]

There is a chart circulating of what the ruling means

[Lamplighter]

Thank's Classic, for finding the video...

[classicman]

It will probably go unnoticed in the grande scheme of things, but I thought he gave a great speech.


...and you're welcome.