US Bishops Support Universal Health Care [2009-07-21] [Zenit]

[estesbob]

All that that proves is that there is no universality in capturing the raw data for this PARTICULAR statistic.It certainly does NOT prove that the statistic itself nor JosephDavid’s contention itself is "bogus".

Of course it does. Unlss their is absolute consistency in the way countries report infant mortality the statisitc is meaningless.

 

[josephdavid]

A bogus stastic based on the difference between the way the United States and these countries report pre-mature births. Per the CBO

SUMMARY
In the United States–as in other industrialized countries–the infant mortality rate has declined dramatically during this century. Yet, despite the high quality and widespread availability of neonatal intensive care technology in this country, the infant mortality rate remains higher than that of many developed nations.
Problems of definition and measurement, however, hamper cross-national comparisons of health statistics. Alternative measures of infant mortality may provide better information but cannot completely compensate for differences among countries in the overall rates of reporting of adverse pregnancy outcomes.** For example, very premature births are more likely to be included in birth and mortality statistics in the United States than in several other industrialized countries that have lower infant mortality rates. **

Let me complete the summary posted by the CBO:

Low birthweight is the primary risk factor for infant mortality and most of the decline in neonatal mortality (deaths of infants less than 28 days old) in the United States since 1970 can be attributed to increased rates of survival among low-birthweight newborns. Indeed, comparisons with countries for which data are available suggest that low birthweight newborns have better chances of survival in the United States than elsewhere. The U.S. infant mortality problem arises primarily because of its birthweight distribution; relatively more infants are born at low birthweight in the United States than in most other industrialized countries. Unfortunately, little progress has been made in reducing U.S. low birthweight rates, which would further improve infant mortality rates.

Federal and state initiatives to lower infant mortality rates have focused on strategies to reduce financial barriers that limit access to prenatal care and on strategies to expand the supply of prenatal care services available to poor pregnant women. The relative advantages and disadvantages of these and other policies to reduce low birthweight and infant mortality are the focus of considerable debate. Recent expansions of the Medicaid program are enabling more low-income children and pregnant women to obtain the health care that they need. Being eligible for Medicaid does not necessarily guarantee access to care, however, especially in areas where providers are in short supply. Hence, federal programs that provide direct support for maternal and child health services and primary care for low-income populations are also important. **Some policy researchers believe, moreover, that the scope of strategies to reduce infant mortality should be broadened from a relatively narrow focus on pregnancy care to the more general issue of how to improve the health status of poor women and their families. **

Also there is the CDC reports: cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf

 

[estesbob]

Let me complete the summary posted by the CBO:

Low birthweight is the primary risk factor for infant mortality and most of the decline in neonatal mortality (deaths of infants less than 28 days old) in the United States since 1970 can be attributed to increased rates of survival among low-birthweight newborns. Indeed, comparisons with countries for which data are available suggest that low birthweight newborns have better chances of survival in the United States than elsewhere. The U.S. infant mortality problem arises primarily because of its birthweight distribution; relatively more infants are born at low birthweight in the United States than in most other industrialized countries. Unfortunately, little progress has been made in reducing U.S. low birthweight rates, which would further improve infant mortality rates.

Federal and state initiatives to lower infant mortality rates have focused on strategies to reduce financial barriers that limit access to prenatal care and on strategies to expand the supply of prenatal care services available to poor pregnant women. The relative advantages and disadvantages of these and other policies to reduce low birthweight and infant mortality are the focus of considerable debate. Recent expansions of the Medicaid program are enabling more low-income children and pregnant women to obtain the health care that they need. Being eligible for Medicaid does not necessarily guarantee access to care, however, especially in areas where providers are in short supply. Hence, federal programs that provide direct support for maternal and child health services and primary care for low-income populations are also important. **Some policy researchers believe, moreover, that the scope of strategies to reduce infant mortality should be broadened from a relatively narrow focus on pregnancy care to the more general issue of how to improve the health status of poor women and their families. **

Also there is the CDC reports: cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf

All of which proves my point-given differning reoporting standards the statisitc is menaingles.

 

[josephdavid]

You idolize the man who institutionalzed taxpayer funded abortion on demand in Canada?

You idolized a man who approved Plan B and other federal funded chemical abortions, torture, invasion of a soveriegn country under bad and/or false pretenses, which lead to tens of thousands of deaths?

Oh I am curious as to why the U.S. has a higher rate of abortions than Canadias?

 

[Soutane]

Let me complete the summary posted by the CBO:

Low birthweight is the primary risk factor for infant mortality and most of the decline in neonatal mortality (deaths of infants less than 28 days old) in the United States since 1970 can be attributed to increased rates of survival among low-birthweight newborns. Indeed, comparisons with countries for which data are available suggest that low birthweight newborns have better chances of survival in the United States than elsewhere. The U.S. infant mortality problem arises primarily because of its birthweight distribution; relatively more infants are born at low birthweight in the United States than in most other industrialized countries. Unfortunately, little progress has been made in reducing U.S. low birthweight rates, which would further improve infant mortality rates.

Federal and state initiatives to lower infant mortality rates have focused on strategies to reduce financial barriers that limit access to prenatal care and on strategies to expand the supply of prenatal care services available to poor pregnant women. The relative advantages and disadvantages of these and other policies to reduce low birthweight and infant mortality are the focus of considerable debate. Recent expansions of the Medicaid program are enabling more low-income children and pregnant women to obtain the health care that they need. Being eligible for Medicaid does not necessarily guarantee access to care, however, especially in areas where providers are in short supply. Hence, federal programs that provide direct support for maternal and child health services and primary care for low-income populations are also important. **Some policy researchers believe, moreover, that the scope of strategies to reduce infant mortality should be broadened from a relatively narrow focus on pregnancy care to the more general issue of how to improve the health status of poor women and their families. **

Also there is the CDC reports: cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db09.pdf

 

[estesbob]

You idolized a man who approved Plan B and other federal funded chemical abortions, torture, invasion of a soveriegn country under bad and/or false pretenses, which lead to tens of thousands of deaths?

I take it that means you are not going to answer the question.

 

[josephdavid]

I take it that means you are not going to answer the question.

Your suggestion is laughable. I had water coming out of my nose I am laughing so hard.

But again, answer as to why abortion rate is much higher than in Canada?

 

[Soutane]

Abortion is a crime that screams out to God.We all know that.Don’t muddy the water.It’s obvious that neither Mr.JosephDavid nor myself laud the man for that reason.You are trying to equate support for universal health care with abortion.That is DISGUSTING,and reprehensible and has no place in honest debate.

 

[perfectpeach]

I don’t understand how people can be so blind. Before government became invovled in healthcare 30 years ago, it WAS affordable and available to all. Managed care systems have inflated the costs of healthcare thanks to government involving themselves where they don’t belong. They created HMO… don’t people know that?

 

[estesbob]

Your suggestion is laughable. I had water coming out of my nose I am laughing so hard.

But again, answer as to why abortion rate is much higher than in Canada?

You claim to be doctrinaire pro-life yet post praises for a man who institued taxpayer funded abotion on demand in Canada. I am just asking you to explain the disconnect?

 

[josephdavid]

I don’t understand how people can be so blind. Before government became invovled in healthcare 30 years ago, it WAS affordable and available to all. Managed care systems have inflated the costs of healthcare thanks to government involving themselves where they don’t belong. They created HMO… don’t people know that?

Have a link to support your argument? I am not saying you are wrong but others that are not aware of this could use the information.

However, your point is one of many reasons it needs to be overhauled.

By the way do not forget the majority of HMO, PPO et are offered by private health insurance companies.

 

[estesbob]

Abortion is a crime that screams out to God.We all know that.Don’t muddy the water.It’s obvious that neither Mr.JosephDavid nor myself laud the man for that reason.You are trying to equate support for universal health care with abortion.That is DISGUSTING,and reprehensible and has no place in honest debate.

I didnt bring Mr Douglas up-JosephDavid did. Perhaps before one invokes his name in a debate they should learn what he stands for.

You are aware, of course, that all the “plans” put forward so far have included publicly funded abortions. Are you willing to abandon the unborn is your desire for universal health care?

 

[josephdavid]

I didnt bring Mr Douglas up-JosephDavid did. Perhaps before one invokes his name in a debate they should learn what he stands for.

You are aware, of course, that all the “plans” put forward so far have included publicly funded abortions. Are you willing to abandon the unborn is your desire for universal health care?

I guess the Canadians did and yet their abortion rates are far less than ours.

 

[perfectpeach]

cchconline.org/issues/hmorise.php3
capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2819

Ask anyone who was around BEFORE government run healthcare. No one was begging for medical care because doctors could AFFORD to give it for free or at a reduced rate to those who could not afford it. But even without insurance (people only had insurance for major catastrophes) healthcare was reasonable.

In every other field (that isn’t government run) techonology has caused prices to lower EXCEPT in healthcare because government is involved.

Let the free market work.

 

[elgar]

It certainly has worked and IS working in Canada.There are some waiting lists for SOME things;however,there is a triage system wwhere the most in need is treated first but ALL are treated not just the fortunate 70%(as in the U.S.).Canada also spends less of its GDP on health care yet 100% are covered.
Canadians live on average 2.5 years longer than Americans and enjoy on average better health.As we both come from the same stock the difference in life expectancy and health logically is attributable to universal health care.
I agree with ONE part of your statement-Universal Health Care is not free-the taxpayer pays for it.I’ll put up with expensive beer in order to have a health care system that works for all.On the other hand we removed the profit takers from the equation-the insurance companies and HMOs who suck out a substantial portion of the health care dollar.

I might have to wait for a knee replacement but I’ll get one and so will the poor person.No wonder the U.S.Bishops support universal health care.

I know of several Canadians who have a very high regard for the American health system as they chose to use it because they could choose the best doctors, hospitals and didn’t have to wait around which could have been fatal considering the life-threatening circumstances. Of course these folks had the means to pay out of their pocket but they are alive to talk about it. If we went with a Canadian-style system, that choice wouldn’t exist anymore. Something to think about.

I’ve also talked to physicians who went to med school and did their residencies in Canada and have since defected to the US for financial reasons. Either they couldn’t make a go on a salary that socialized medicine provided or they didn’t want to. As bad as this may sound, there just weren’t any incentives to get ahead in a system that basically gives you a capped salary and lets you decide on a patient load.

I’m glad I scheduled my colonoscopy for Septemeber as I don’t have to pay a penny for the procedure because of my private insurance. Who knows if this procedure along with others will continue to be covered under Obamacare. One stat I heard is that Canadians die at a much higher rate of colon cancer. Wonder why? My mother-in-law just had her colonoscopy at age 84 and medicare paid for the whole thing. Watch out mom. When health care gets rationed, anybody over 80 will most likely be tossed aside.

As far as Americans lagging behind in life expectancy and overall health compared to Canadians and Western Europeans, all I can say is our diet is killing us. Obesity is a greater threat to our overall well being than many of the other vices combined IMHO.

 

[josephdavid]

I know of several Canadians who have a very high regard for the American health system as they chose to use it because they could choose the best doctors, hospitals and didn’t have to wait around which could have been fatal considering the life-threatening circumstances. Of course these folks had the means to pay out of their pocket but they are alive to talk about it. If we went with a Canadian-style system, that choice wouldn’t exist anymore. Something to think about.

I’ve also talked to physicians who went to med school and did their residencies in Canada and have since defected to the US for financial reasons. Either they couldn’t make a go on a salary that socialized medicine provided or they didn’t want to. As bad as this may sound, there just weren’t any incentives to get ahead in a system that basically gives you a capped salary and lets you decide on a patient load.

I’m glad I scheduled my colonoscopy for Septemeber as I don’t have to pay a penny for the procedure because of my private insurance. Who knows if this procedure along with others will continue to be covered under Obamacare. One stat I heard is that Canadians die at a much higher rate of colon cancer. Wonder why? My mother-in-law just had her colonoscopy at age 84 and medicare paid for the whole thing. Watch out mom. When health care gets rationed, anybody over 80 will most likely be tossed aside.

As far as Americans lagging behind in life expectancy and overall health compared to Canadians and Western Europeans, all I can say is our diet is killing us. Obesity is a greater threat to our overall well being than many of the other vices combined IMHO.

And I have been working (not as a tourist) in Canada for about 13 years now, and have very dear friends in Canada. They tell me the exact opposite. They know it is not perfect but would not want what we have here. As I have posted in other threads, in 2006 there was a national survey in Canada and 65% said they were satisified with their current health care system.

Now your last sentence. You are spot on with that one. I would not want any healht reform that does not include preventitive health care (diet, fitness, etc.). Diet is a big problem here and a contributing factor to the over all costs. But not the sole reason.

 

[Brendan]

And I have been working (not as a tourist) in Canada for about 13 years now, and have very dear friends in Canada. They tell me the exact opposite. They know it is not perfect but would not want what we have here…

That is rather interesting, my wife is Canadian. When we were expecting our kids, as we got towards the end of pregnancy, she would not go back into Canada in case she might go into labor there. She refused to trust a Canadian hospital.

And, living in a border town, we see quite a number of Canadians coming over here to get medical treatment. A big one for our area are MRI’s. There are no MRI systems across the river in Windsor, Ontario. Someone there has to either wait for an MRI to become availalbe in London or Toronto, or come to the US.

What is also interesting is that the animal hospital has an MRI unit, so your dog can get treated locally, but you can’t

 

[josephdavid]

That is rather interesting, my wife is Canadian. When we were expecting our kids, as we got towards the end of pregnancy, she would not go back into Canada in case she might go into labor there. She refused to trust a Canadian hospital.

And, living in a border town, we see quite a number of Canadians coming over here to get medical treatment. A big one for our area are MRI’s. There are no MRI systems across the river in Windsor, Ontario. Someone there has to either wait for an MRI to become availalbe in London or Toronto, or come to the US.

What is also interesting is that the animal hospital has an MRI unit, so your dog can get treated locally, but you can’t

There are no MRI’s in Windsor? Seriously?

Also if it is so bad why are Canadians wanting their system abolished? Also why are Americans going to Mexican and Canada for medical care and prescriptions?

 

[perfectpeach]

I don’t know much about how the government is run in Canada, but why is everyone comparing Canada and the US. Look at how the US government has handled Social Securty, FEMA, the department of education… should I even MENTION the FDA? Why on earth would anyone want these people in charge of our health.

SCARY!!

 

[JaMc]

Regardless of what one thinks of universal health care, this should be of some concern to the Bishops: stoptheabortionmandate.com/

I received the link from the Knights of Columbus (Supreme Council), so I’m sure it is a reputable source.