Say what you will about Glenn Beck...

[tater]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Too bad we don't have groups doing the same in the US, if you are a poor American good luck getting first rate medical care...

The poor get excellent medical care in the US. Docs are forced to take medicaid patients to have privileges at hospitals. Docs treat them no differently than anyone else, heck, they often don't even know the insurance status. Even if they did, fear of being sued (the poor patients do like to sue, after all) means the incentive is also to treat them the same.

Standard of care is standard of care.

BTW, docs frequently pay money out of pocket for every medicaid patient they see. They cannot write off the in-kind contribution, or even the LOSS that seeing them entails (if the per-patient visit overhead is $34 and Medicaid pays $22, the doc loses $12 per patient—so the doc's time is worth negative $/hour).

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

The poor get excellent medical care in the US. Docs are forced to take medicaid patients to have privileges at hospitals. Docs treat them no differently than anyone else, heck, they often don't even know the insurance status. Even if they did, fear of being sued (the poor patients do like to sue, after all) means the incentive is also to treat them the same.

Why then have multiple studies found that poor people are treated by lower quality physicians? I think those findings make it hard to argue that the poor receive the same standard of care as everyone else.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

careful spewing that around here

I am a Christian too. I attend church every week, direct the choir and used to teach Sunday School. I have never felt threatened when stating that on SubSim. The only times I have felt threatened on this board were when I said something nice about Barack Obama or was critical of anything remotely main-stream conservative. There is an almost militant lean to the right on this forum which was not the case several years ago. GT has become a much less friendly place.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

There is an almost militant lean to the right on this forum which was not the case several years ago. GT has become a much less friendly place.

Maybe. I lurked GT long before I started posting in it. Remember the knock down drag out fights that Avon Lady used to be involved in? Those were some pretty heated times.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Maybe. I lurked GT long before I started posting in it. Remember the knock down drag out fights that Avon Lady used to be involved in? Those were some pretty heated times.

You're right. Really, I was referencing the forum before 2004. That was the year that things really started to change. I'm just in a stupid nostalgic mood.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Your right. Really, I was referencing the forum before 2004. That was the year that things really started to change. I'm just in a stupid nostalgic mood.

I would tend to agree.

[Growler]

[sigh]

My issue with religion is based on my participation in it, and observations of it. In my experience, I have found that those who trumpet loudest about what "good Christians" they are inevitably prove the opposite. I've watched "good Christians" lie, cheat, steal, while good people who didn't believe the same way were passed over for doing things correctly, honorably, and morally right. I watched a man who, as the deacon of the church where I grew up, ministered to the ill, the poor, the lonely, with care, compassion, and equity - and I watched him die bereft, divorced after 40 years, estranged from his kids by his ex-wife, destitute and alone in an apartment building that would make the gulag look like Monaco.

I cannot find ANY religious/faith/spiritual justification for any kind of supreme deity who, in his allegedly infinite wisdom and majesty, created mankind in his image - his most perfect creation - then abandoned it to murder, mayhem, and destruction of his most perfect creation. Many of you are parents - would you, as loving parents, allow your children to kill each other, "for the lesson it teaches them, for their own good" etc? There can be no explanation for the lack of interest demonstrated by a god in the face of the inequities levied by humans, on humans. I watched two of the most devout, spiritually-driven people I have ever known die in utter agony from illnesses well within divine power to counter. But I suppose excruciating pain in your most loyal followers is part of some divine plan, to show how much you love us.

Am I bitter? You better believe it. I have never been anything but betrayed and lied to on behalf of "god" and his followers. And now I see that same betrayal being perpetuated by commentators who want to foster the inclusion of that betrayal into governing law.

Golden Rivet, I was not attacking you in my response. I'm sorry you feel that I was - I specifically stated that my opinion was based on what I read, not on the video - there's no "Edited:" tag on my post there - you'll see that was my intention from the inception of the post. I'm sorry you felt that a justifiable reason to insult me as well as reason to out-of-hand dismiss what I posted.

[tater]

What metrics are they using?

Lesse:

Using education, training, experience, and board certification to measure physician quality, we find that uninsured and Medicaid patients are treated by lower-quality physicians both because of the hospitals these patients attend and because of sorting within hospitals. The effects are statistically significant, but small.

Board certification. Nice, but Residents are not board certified. They are also less educated (they are not yet done, after all). Training? Ditto. Experience? Ditto. The poor are often seen at teaching hospitals. There is still an attending someplace, but he's one per X residents. How about using OUTCOMES, instead? Who are these morons doing this study?

2d study (oddly, the exact same authors—neither of whom are physician, but are in fact economics people (LOL)): They make the identical claim above (likely it's the same paper based on the abstract). Interesting, because they say that medical papers blame patient factors. What do those docs know about medical outcomes compared to economists!

The 3d paper is actually by docs. It's a better study (because unlike the first 2 POS papers it actually looks at results—the only thing that matters). It shows that incentives increase performance. Unsurprising given the nature of medical practice in poor communities. It would be interesting to see where the communities were, and if location (rural poor vs urban poor) made a difference. They did, however, look at conditions that are very much affected by lifestyle (diet, exercise, etc). The question is not does more money result in better care, but how is the baseline care. See the difference? Throwing monetary incentives might make the baseline US system better, but better than itself, and the US system is already good.

Regardless, overall US stats (warts and all) for fatal conditions that are treatable (cancers, etc, that have decent cure rates) are better for the US than anywhere else, so any relative improvement in US care might still be taking it from a baseline that is already ABOVE places with different systems.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

Regardless, overall US stats (warts and all) for fatal conditions that are treatable (cancers, etc, that have decent cure rates) are better for the US than anywhere else, so any relative improvement in US care might still be taking it from a baseline that is already ABOVE places with different systems.

Not

always.

[tater]

Mortality per 100,000 divided by incidence per 100,000.

Complex metrics like those studies are not measures of quality of care.

Breast cancer is fatal if untreated. Prostate cancer is fatal if untreated (albeit more slowly than the former). That makes the statistics easy. Morbidity would show similar results, but is clearly more complex to study (quality of life, etc). Still, Life is a better quality of life than death.

US incidence is grossly higher than Europe, and the death rate per 100,000 (population at large) is about the same or slightly better. That means we have many more sick per 100,000, yet only the same number die per 100k. That is entirely quality of medical care since no care = death.

All those studies using complex metrics ignore the simple metric that shows them to be wrong. The 2d study by "urban institute" doesn't look like an epidemiology journal, so I didn't bother looking in any detail. Probably written by medical experts like the 2 economists that wrote your first 2 papers shown above. The first paper is also not written by epidemiologists, but "policy" people.

The first used things like MI, stroke, and asthma. All of these are hopelessly confounded by lifestyle factors. How can you possibly measure quality of care when it is impossible to factor out weight, exercise, air quality, etc, ad nauseum/ You can't, since they are not only measuring quality of care. The US asthma rate is increasing towards NZ! It must be medical care (nevermind why it is better in the first place)? How about air quality, or less exercise?

Again, it is easy to look at quality of care. Pick disorders that are fatal if untreated, but are in fact treatable. Compare mortality and morbidity to incidence. All such data is routinely reported epidemiologically as cases per 100,000 population at large. There are some lifestyle-related issues in cancer incidence, but they do not make survival any better (if anything, worse). The US has more cases per 100,000 typically because we have a heterogeneous society compared to much of the world (certain ethnic groups are predisposed to some cancers).

Anyway, those studies are hopelessly confounded.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I think people may be missing the point. Her tax bill is most likely pretty low. People with any substantial wealth will structure their investments and income so as to minimize their tax liability. The companies she owns are also structured to minimize their taxes paid.

She has a brand to maintain. The brand of being an approachable woman who's just like the ones who watch her at home - the kind of friend you'd invite over for coffee. She shares the same everyday trials and tribulations you do! She hates traffic (nevermind that she take a limo everywhere), she has bad hair days (nevermind that she has a team of stylists), she hates to pay her taxes...get it?

You can beat her up and call her a hypocrite all you want. But you need to realize that you've been suckered into her marketing image as much as anyone else.

And that somehow makes her hypocrisy more tolerarable? Oh, I get it, it's okay to espouse social ideals of equality and justice while not practicing them yourself. It'll be just like the Kennedy legacy; a bunch of rich *******s who did virtually nothing to help the people they professed care for.

If she's so keen on her image and marketing, why doesn't she just come out and say "You know what? The free market and my talents got me where I am today but wealth is more important to me than my ideals. Even so, I'd like for all of you to do what I say when it comes to caring and sharing and all that other BS because I am better than you and I know what's best for you."

I think I may well grant Oprah honorary tenure at FU.

[tater]

The biggest problem for the poor in the US is actually the RURAL poor. The problem is not quality of care, but quantity of care. The rural, "flyover" states have a marked shortage of healthcare providers. Both docs, and secondary providers (nurses, nurse practitioners, and PAs).

The only incentive possible is money, but who wants to move to BF noplace, even for a million a year if they have to be on call very day, or every other day? My wife gets headhunter stuff begging her to come to rural areas almost daily for outrageous sums per year. 500k, plus what you earn above that. This in places where a 500k house would be the biggest house in town by a wide margin, likely you'd have to build one, and it would be a mansion. But lifestyle sucks. Rural schools, and virtually constant call. They tend to get high turn over. Get a single dude who wants to zero his 200k in student loans ASAP, who will then bail for civilization as soon as the contract is up.

It's really the specialists that matter, primary care is typically overrated by health policy people as a panacea, and it simply is not. Most primary care "sick" visits are for self-limiting conditions. The vast, overwhelming majority. See the doc and get (unneeded) antibiotics as empirical care, or wait the 10 days you're on the antibiotics and get well anyway. When you need a specialist, that's when you need real healthcare.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by Growler

My issue with religion is based on my participation in it, and observations of it. In my experience, I have found that those who trumpet loudest about what "good Christians" they are inevitably prove the opposite

I can agree with you there

Originally Posted by Growler

I've watched "good Christians" lie, cheat, steal, while good people who didn't believe the same way were passed over for doing things correctly, honorably, and morally right.

As have I.

Originally Posted by Growler

I watched a man who, as the deacon of the church where I grew up, ministered to the ill, the poor, the lonely, with care, compassion, and equity - and I watched him die bereft, divorced after 40 years, estranged from his kids by his ex-wife, destitute and alone in an apartment building that would make the gulag look like Monaco.

Did he die with his faith?

As for most of the remainder of your post there, I am probably the last person around here to try and change your mind about how you feel about Religion, and i am probably the last person around here to "sell" God to you, and I am probably the last person around here who can put some sort of spin on things to make life make sense to you from a religious perspective.

Originally Posted by Growler

Am I bitter? You better believe it. I have never been anything but betrayed and lied to on behalf of "god" and his followers. And now I see that same betrayal being perpetuated by commentators who want to foster the inclusion of that betrayal into governing law.

As long as those commentators are idiots as many say... what have you to worry about?

I think we all have some sort of cynical or bitter view of things to one extent or another.

Originally Posted by Growler

Golden Rivet, I was not attacking you in my response. I'm sorry you feel that I was

I dont feel attacked, i feel unheard... i feel like my opinion is falling on deaf ears. I dont want any part of God in the government... all i am saying is that the video i posted begs an interesting question. and that is "Might people be more apt to freely give and give abundantly if they were able to select those charities, good will organizations, pet projects and social programs that their money would be donated to via the Federal Government as an intermediary?"

Originally Posted by Growler

I specifically stated that my opinion was based on what I read, not on the video

The intention of my thread was to have you watch the video, not read what some underpaid intern or someone wrote beneath it.

Originally Posted by Growler

I'm sorry you felt that a justifiable reason to insult me as well as reason to out-of-hand dismiss what I posted.

I dont know how i went about insulting you, and i never intended to insult anyone with any jab, i think nothing was said here in this thread that could be considered below the belt so to speak...

however i found it easy to dismiss your post because you failed to follow the simple request of the thread and even states so outright.

If the thread was "Watch this 6 minute independent film and provide your opinion" would you then skip the 6 minute clip and simply inject your opinion into the conversation based on something you read?






im sorry, but paying the faceless, cold, bureaucratic IRS doesnt give me a warm fuzzy.

BUT

giving to a charity that i care about, or donating to an organization through which i can see the impact of my dollar... THATS something

the entire bolded font there is my whole point, and i have a hard time seeing how anyone would feel better mailing a check to the IRS and trusting uncle sam to do as he wishes as opposed to being able to CHOOSE where the money goes.

EDIT:

yes i still think we should pay taxes for roads and airports and cops and firemen etc. I just think that when your tax money is allocated to special welfare-like, social programs - you should be able to pick which one(s) it goes to.

thats a very simple concept and doesnt have a damned thing to do with religion

[Armistead]

Although I struggle with faith, I basically see religion two-fold, you have the larger organized religious groups, almost all denominations belong to one. Most are like big business, they believe they're right and will push their views. Many involve themselves in politics. Then you have those that really try to help others, but these are mostly working in the background not seeking attention. Beck's are attention seekers.

I was once very religious, at the time my faith was very sincere. I went on several mission trips to Africa, ect. However, why some help was given, the goal of course was to not only to bring tribes to Christ, but also define cultural morality on their terms, of course using threats of hell fire to do so. These tribes ran around naked, were polygamous, ect. This was a culture that had insured their survival. They were never taught the naked body was evil, so nakedness wasn't an issue, but in less than a year they were taught the naked body was evil and started wearing more clothes. I think before it was over, we had done much more harm, but christians from american had a hard time going to a church service and when kneeling to pray you may look up and see a naked butt.

That's the problem I have with the Beck's of the world. They see morality based on how they want it and would love to impose it on others through the media or politics. I don't think Sarah could become President, but that woman scares the hell out of me.

I honestly think if the fundy christian right could bring back the old form of religious government, they would do so, then we would be back to christians torturing people at will. We have to remember the only thing that really brought an end to christians torturing was secular law.

[TarJak]