Photographer Compares Microstock Sites To Pollution And Drug Dealing

digitalintrigue

I did not infer, at least I hope I you didn't take it that way, that any system of health care is perfect. They are not and can stand to be tuned up as circumstances change. The one underlying concept in our system that I do not want to see changed for any reason is the idea of universality. I do not want a system that leaves large chunks of our population without the ability to get medical care simply because of their financial circumstance. You like your system and I like mine and that is well and good. Just be aware that there are more than one or two ways to do things. The problem is finding one that the majority are happy with.

Bob
 
I didn't get that impression. I only posted that article to illustrate the irony of both sides of the fence thinking that the other side is greener. :) It's certainly interesting to ponder.
 
digitalintrigue said:
I only posted that article to illustrate the irony of both sides of the fence thinking that the other side is greener. :) It's certainly interesting to ponder.
Click to expand...

In Canada, some provinces have private auto insurance, some have public. But one constant remains--no matter where you are, someone is complaining about how their insurance sucks, and how it's better in the province next door.

It's interesting how the human mind works...
 
Last edited:
digitalintrigue said:
I didn't get that impression. I only posted that article to illustrate the irony of both sides of the fence thinking that the other side is greener. :) It's certainly interesting to ponder.
Click to expand...

Here's news for you pal. It is greener. We _all_ get coverage. Not so in the US where you can die if you don't have enough money to pay for your health care.

Please stop with the ridiculous arguments. Its pathetic.
 
Um, I just posted an article, saying it's ironic. If you think it's pathetic to have a discussion, then find some other thread, ok?
 
antiquark said:
Thanks for the link! So when someone talks about Canadian health care, the next question should be "which province?" However the coverage is still universal in BC, even though they have to pay for insurance.

But the guy must have been really strapped for cash. Come on, is $54 too much to pay?

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/msp/infoben/premium.html
Monthly rates are $54 for one person, $96 for a family of two and $108 for a family of three or more. Effective January 1, 2010 monthly rates will change to $57 for one person, $102 for a family of two and $114 for a family of three or more.
Click to expand...

Yeah, his mom said that it wasn't much, about $100. His reasoning was that he wasn't "using it" and was tired of paying premiums.
 
Dirty little secret: after spending trillions on the Senate bill, there will STILL be 24 million uninsured in 2019, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Also, the CBO said the House bill would leave 18 million uninsured by 2019.

So much for everyone getting coverage. It appears that everyone, no matter their viewpoint, should reject these bills.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's probably a healthy thing (hehe :) ) the CMA is always looking for efficiencies, examining how things are done elsewhere and questioning if they can be applied to our system. I can confidently say though, the vast majority of Canadians would not allow our system to go private. Ever.

I was also able to find a list to ponder, but a bit hesitant to post it. I don't know enough about how things really are in the US, nor is it my business, but from an "outsiders" perspective, the status quo does not seems satisfactory. I think your president is attempting to make things better for all your population, certainly for the less fortunate. Doing nothing would not be moving forward. Doing something (even if it falls short from ideal) would. I have no problem paying taxes to fund our health care system, it one of the things that makes Canada such a wonderful country. Its worth paying for.




  • The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system. Source: Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences
  • In 2006, the percentage of Americans without health insurance was 15.8%, or approximately 47 million uninsured people. Source: US Census Bureau
  • Among the 84.2% with health insurance in 2006, coverage was provided through an employer 59.7%, purchased individually 9.1%, and 27.0% was government funded (Medicare, Medicaid, Military). (There is some overlap in coverage figures.) Source: US Census Bureau
  • The primary reason given for lack of health insurance coverage in 2005 was cost (more than 50%), lost job or a change in employment (24%), Medicaid benefits stopped (10%), ineligibility for family insurance coverage due to age or leaving school (8%). Source: National Center for Health Statistics
  • More than 40 million adults stated that they needed but did not receive one or more of these health services (medical care, prescription medicines, mental health care, dental care, or eyeglasses) in 2005 because they could not afford it. Source: National Center for Health Statistics
  • Medicaid, which accounted for 12.9% of health care coverage in 2006, is a health insurance program jointly funded by the federal and state governments to provide health care for qualifying low-income individuals. Source: US Census Bureau
  • Medicare, a federally funded health insurance program that covers the health care of most individuals 65 years of age and over and disabled persons, accounted for 13.6% of health care coverage in 2006. Source: US Census Bureau
  • Medicare operates with 3% overhead, non-profit insurance 16% overhead, and private (for-profit) insurance 26% overhead. Source: Journal of American Medicine 2007
Health Care Expenditures
  • In 2005, personal health care expenditures were paid by private health insurance 36%, federal government 35%, state and local governments 11% , and out-of-pocket payments 15%. Source: National Center for Health Statistics
  • The United States spends twice as much on health care per capita ($7,129) than any other country . . . and spending continues to increase. In 2005, the national health care expenditures totaled $2 trillion. Source: National Center for Health Statistics
  • 75% of all health care dollars are spent on patients with one or more chronic conditions, many of which can be prevented, including diabetes, obesity, heart disease, lung disease, high blood pressure, and cancer. Source: Health Affairs
  • From 2000 to 2006, overall inflation has increased 3.5%, wages have increased 3.8%, and health care premiums have increased 87%. Source: Kaiser Family Foundation
  • The average family health insurance premium, provided through an employer health benefit program, was $11,480 in 2006. Employees paid an average of $2,973 towards the premium amount. Source: Kaiser Family Foundation
Infant Mortality
  • The United States ranks 43rd in lowest infant mortality rate, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990. Singapore has the lowest rate with 2.3 deaths per 1000 live births, while the United States has a rate of 6.3 deaths per 1000 live births. Some of the other 42 nations that have a lower infant mortality rate than the US include Hong Kong, Slovenia, and Cuba. Source: CIA Factbook (2008)
  • Approximately 30,000 infants die in the United States each year. The infant mortality rate, which is the risk of death during the first year of life, is related to the underlying health of the mother, public health practices, socioeconomic conditions, and availability and use of appropriate health care for infants and pregnant women. Sources: CDC and National Center for Health Statistics
Life Expectancy
  • Life expectancy at birth in the US is an average of 78.14 years, which ranks 47th in highest total life expectancy compared to other countries. Source: CIA Factbook (2008)
Bankruptcy
  • About half of the bankruptcy filings in the United States are due to medical expenses. Source: Health Affairs Journal 2005
 
nextreme said:
  • Medicaid, which accounted for 12.9% of health care coverage in 2006, is a health insurance program jointly funded by the federal and state governments to provide health care for qualifying low-income individuals. Source: US Census Bureau
    • Medicare operates with 3% overhead, non-profit insurance 16% overhead, and private (for-profit) insurance 26% overhead. Source: Journal of American Medicine 2007
Click to expand...

Sure medicare and medicaid are great models. As govt agencies they can do whatever they want.

They are capricious in how they reimburse ... Their major cost saving mechanism is to simply refuse to pay for service, after it has been given.

M and M (especially Medicare) cost facilities and practitioners money by making sure they hire specialists to make sure they are in "compliance". This is done by having them periodically come in to audit the practice. $25000 for the initial visit then, 15-$20000, for check ups every other year.

The new administration has proposed fines for not using Electronic Health Records, but research has shown that by installing these systems, practitioners stand to lose much more money because of the cost of the system and Medicare's extremely low reimbursement rate. Medical articles have intimated that it would be better financially to just eat the cost of the fine for a while until they can figure out the best ERH for that practice.

Medical offices have gotten a little "smarter" because they now have someone in office to ; keep up with claims issued to Medicare to make sure they get paid. They also provide the service of making sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed to help avoid fines and jailtime. So you have another employee who has to be paid. But they provide a good service because jail is probably not too much fun.

So yeah, Medicare operates at a low overhead, but it cost medical facilities and practitioners a lot of money.

The ironic thing is that Medicare's reimbursement doesn't even pay the cost to open the door for a day of business. Medicaid is even worse.
 
24 pages. Disruptive technology, indeed. I recommend collective action to drive-up the cost of cameras. Boycott all sales items! v(^-^)
 
wgerrard said:
Boy, do I know that, Roger. I've contemplated moving to, or living for an extended period in, the UK. But, I'd very likely end up paying U.S. and UK taxes, at least as I understand it.
Click to expand...

Dear Bill,

Only if your earned income is over $84,000 (or thereabouts -- it keeps going up) per year after deductions. Otherwise there's a dual taxation treaty.

Cheers,

R.
 
There is truth in a lot of the points you copied from www.healthpaconline.net, but some can't be taken at face value and need clarification....

nextreme said:
  • Medicare operates with 3% overhead, non-profit insurance 16% overhead, and private (for-profit) insurance 26% overhead. Source: Journal of American Medicine 2007
Click to expand...
Every comparison I have seen comparing Medicare "overhead" with private insurance is seriously flawed. It is using %s calculated in completely different ways in an attempt to draw comparisons.

For example, government accounting does not allocate major costs of Medicare to the Medicare system. But when accounting for a private entity, these costs must be included: for example: premium collection (the portion of the cost for the IRS to collect the taxpayer funds) and debt servicing (allocate an appropriate portions Nat'l debt interest obligations).

Private company numbers are also made more unfavorable in the apples to oranges comparison by the inclusion in overhead calculations of things such as taxes (on revenue, commision, premium, etc), wellness programs and consultation, and fraud prevention (Medicare has an estimated 12% fraud rate of $47 billion/year, obviously this is not accounted for).

Also when discussing non-medical cost rate you cannot ignore the demographics served. Medicare members tend to be older and need more care than the average member in a private plan. For example, if it took a fully cost allocated $ amount of $100 to process a claim in both the Medicare and the private system and the Medicare claim was $2000 and the private claim $1000, the "overhead" rate to process the private claim (100/1000) appears to be twice that of the Medicare claim (100/2000).

So after taking into account the above, and adding the fact that Medicare claims are usually processed side by side by private carriers, it doesn't make sense that the overhead is so low. I am not sure how the real numbers would stack but they are much different from percentages commonly put forth as above.

Infant Mortality
  • The United States ranks 43rd in lowest infant mortality rate, down from 12th in 1960 and 21st in 1990. Singapore has the lowest rate with 2.3 deaths per 1000 live births, while the United States has a rate of 6.3 deaths per 1000 live births. Some of the other 42 nations that have a lower infant mortality rate than the US include Hong Kong, Slovenia, and Cuba. Source: CIA Factbook (2008)
Click to expand...

This one was clarified earlier in the thread - it too is an apples to oranges comparison, different countries determine a live birth differently. This seriously skews the rates and eliminates the possibility of an fair comparison with this self reported data.
 
No doubt the infant mortality figures are disputable, but 43rd (and at that, down from 12th and 21st) still suggests things could be better. Presumably the CIA thinks the fgures are not completely worthless, or they would not continue to publish them.

Cheers,

R.
 
gdi said:
This one was clarified earlier in the thread - it too is an apples to oranges comparison, different countries determine a live birth differently. This seriously skews the rates and eliminates the possibility of an fair comparison with this self reported data.
Click to expand...

That's another one of those "zombie lies", a lie that will not die. The idea is that Canada has a better infant mortality because premature babies are not considered "live." In Canada, every baby born is considered "live" and is cared for!

Sheesh, I've heard that more than once... "oh, if a baby is premature in Canada, the doctors just throw up their hands and say it's not a live birth..." Total f**king lie!
 
gdi said:
This one was clarified earlier in the thread - it too is an apples to oranges comparison, different countries determine a live birth differently. This seriously skews the rates and eliminates the possibility of an fair comparison with this self reported data.
Click to expand...

Parents who lose babies rally don't care about infant mortality rankings. Wherever the U.S. places, it isn't good enough for them.
 
antiquark said:
That's another one of those "zombie lies", a lie that will not die. The idea is that Canada has a better infant mortality because premature babies are not considered "live." In Canada, every baby born is considered "live" and is cared for!

Sheesh, I've heard that more than once... "oh, if a baby is premature in Canada, the doctors just throw up their hands and say it's not a live birth..." Total f**king lie!
Click to expand...

Please don't direct that rant at me - I never said anything about Canada's infant mortality rate.
 
wgerrard said:
Parents who lose babies rally don't care about infant mortality rankings. Wherever the U.S. places, it isn't good enough for them.
Click to expand...


Surely you don't advocate using invalid comparisons to advocate a point.

Also, I am sure that you would say that a family living in the highest rated country who loses a child would believe their country's rate falls short as well.

My point is that cherry picking "statistics" to support a viewpoint or exaggerate a situation should be avoided.
 
wgerrard said:
No. I just don't think the comparison is especially useful.
Click to expand...



That was, obviously my point. It is a tragedy to lose any child and the US should have try to lower infant mortality rates. But when discussing the issue we must be careful to look at the data carefully.
 
gdi said:
Please don't direct that rant at me - I never said anything about Canada's infant mortality rate.
Click to expand...

I've heard the mortality rate argument in different places, it wasn't directed at you. It was more of a debunking of the argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top