|
SOCIAL MEDICINE |
Wednesday, January 12, 2005 |
According to Walter Williams
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20050112.shtml
|
posted by Jack Mercer @ 1/12/2005 11:21:00 AM |
|
3 Comments: |
-
I get the feeling that in a very short time I am going to develop an unpleasant Pavlovian response to that guy's name... I think there ought to be an entire category of fallecies entitled "Fact v Myth", sort of along the lines of "lies, damned lies, and statistics".
"Myth: Uninsured individuals have no access to medical care. Fact: It turns out that in 2004 uninsured Americans received $125 billion of health care, of which $41 billion was provided totally free of charge." Does this $41B of care provided totally free of charge include all of the the urgent care and ER care that is eventually written off b/c patients are too poor to pay? Is this $41B of "free" care what's driving up my health costs?? I'd love to see him back that up a little more.
"Myth: Skyrocketing prescription drugs are driving health-care spending up. Fact: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as a whole, Americans spend about 1 percent of their income on drugs. Seniors spend about 3 percent on drugs, less than the amount they spend on entertainment. Spending on drugs, as a percent of total health-care spending, was 10 percent in 1960. It's roughly the same today." I would love a statistic that doesn't include Bill Gates in the average % of income dedicated to health care. This stat is totally useless as I mentioned before. Additionally, he neglects to mention that the gap between our upper class and the poor has increased during this time period. Therefore, if the total average percent of income spent on income has remained roughly the same and wealth is concentrated among fewer people, the burden is actually worse on the poor than before.
Additionally, I assume his waiting time estimates only include people who eventually get care. I can't tell you how many simple tests I haven't been able to get for my grandfather, so I guess that means he is still waiting and won't ever be counted in those types of surveys.
Aesop's story is cute, but I don't think it's relevant.
-
But, Lefty, he's African American! (j/k:)
I guess a few things stood out in the article to me. I lived in Saint John, New Brunswick (Canada) for 4 years (I have landed immigrant status--even a social insurance number) and saw the primitive medical system that it was. Sure, it was free, but at what amazing cost to its citizens in terms of taxes, and sacrificed health of its recipients. Many of our friends of means would cross the border to Calais, Maine or Bangor for medical treatment.
Then there is the question of "poor" in the United States. Do you know anyone who is truly poor? I had a friend overseas who lived in a cardboard box (when he could find one), every day he drank water out of the same rivulet of water that people washed in and used the bathroom in. Jishua was not the exception in his country but the rule. In the United States (a tremendously rich AND spoiled nation), we put people who make under $30,000 a year in the "poor" class. Poor to me has always been the destitute, the starving. I don't see many of those people in the United States who are in that condition--unless they choose to be. (Keep in mind, there are always exceptions, but I'm looking at the rule).
-
Here's my thing, Jack: yes, adults need to learn to take care of themselves. That's one thing on which I've come to agree with many conservatives. I understand that an abundance of entitlement programs can breed a lack of ambition. However, I am not willing to make kids suffer for their parents' poor judgement. I don't want families having to move into cardboard boxes before someone steps into help. So if that means providing assistance to people I wouldn't otherwise provide for, I'm willing to pay for that. I believe we're called to do that.
Additionally, I dealt with the 2nd scariest health issue I've ever faced while I was living in Germany & I was floored at how *simple* the process was. I was able to get real & immediate health care without having to navigate a rediculous bureaucracy or plead with someone working in administration. No one's system is perfect, I understand that. But I'm also ready to admit that ours isn't either.
|
|
<< Home |
|
|
|
|
About Me |
Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile
"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".
Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.
Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.
In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.
WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.
|
Other things |
Archives |
|
Politics |
|
Template by |
|
|
I get the feeling that in a very short time I am going to develop an unpleasant Pavlovian response to that guy's name... I think there ought to be an entire category of fallecies entitled "Fact v Myth", sort of along the lines of "lies, damned lies, and statistics".
"Myth: Uninsured individuals have no access to medical care. Fact: It turns out that in 2004 uninsured Americans received $125 billion of health care, of which $41 billion was provided totally free of charge." Does this $41B of care provided totally free of charge include all of the the urgent care and ER care that is eventually written off b/c patients are too poor to pay? Is this $41B of "free" care what's driving up my health costs?? I'd love to see him back that up a little more.
"Myth: Skyrocketing prescription drugs are driving health-care spending up. Fact: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as a whole, Americans spend about 1 percent of their income on drugs. Seniors spend about 3 percent on drugs, less than the amount they spend on entertainment. Spending on drugs, as a percent of total health-care spending, was 10 percent in 1960. It's roughly the same today." I would love a statistic that doesn't include Bill Gates in the average % of income dedicated to health care. This stat is totally useless as I mentioned before. Additionally, he neglects to mention that the gap between our upper class and the poor has increased during this time period. Therefore, if the total average percent of income spent on income has remained roughly the same and wealth is concentrated among fewer people, the burden is actually worse on the poor than before.
Additionally, I assume his waiting time estimates only include people who eventually get care. I can't tell you how many simple tests I haven't been able to get for my grandfather, so I guess that means he is still waiting and won't ever be counted in those types of surveys.
Aesop's story is cute, but I don't think it's relevant.