tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post1507799076953618854..comments2023-10-15T10:39:20.908-04:00Comments on One Frum Skeptic: for real now...frumskeptichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02990363895869876238noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-42207827148241857262010-04-27T14:56:36.499-04:002010-04-27T14:56:36.499-04:00"but because the USSR was a communist, totali..."but because the USSR was a communist, totalitarian state."<br /><br />You're right. Obama is no totalitarian. What are the american people soo worried about? He only wants whats best for the public, even though *majority* of the public doesnt see eye-to-eye with him on the bill, and they dont want it. They are perfectly happy with their health insurance and are unwilling to pay higher taxes. BUt Obama knows what's best for the people, and the Public should be happy they have such a wonderful caring government that doesn't bother listening to their needs but decides what they deem is a need for them.<br /><br />"The government is not providing significantly more health care than it used to - there is only a marginal increase in the scope of Medicaid. Rather, the government is telling people they have to buy their own insurance. The Democrats did not so much reform health care in the US as they reformed health insurance in the US."<br /><br />And then they'll penalize people who wont buy it, and they will tax those who are insured with premium health insurance (b/c gd forbid someone wants a premium package!), and they'll tax your employer. And then they'll give the poor people free insurance.<br /><br />So while I have insurance, I'm gonna get taxed.... so will grandma's wheelchair, and my tanning visit... and probably soon my soda.<br /><br />YAY for freedom. <br /><br />"You would oppose a government that imposed equality by law, instead of one that lets you be ranked by how much money you have?"<br /><br />I'm speaking for mlevin... but HELL YEA!<br /><br />How much money you have is determined by hardwork, perserverence, and sometimes a little bit of luck. If I truly felt like it, I woulda gone to grad school. But I'm not studius, nor am I willing to sacrafice 80 hrs/week working to make a certain amount of money. BUt people who do it... GOOD for them. I think they should KEEP their money. and CHOOSE if they wanna spend it or not. WE live in such a great country where SOOOOO many of our rich people already donate soooo much money. WHy are you willing to ultimately hurt the middle-class?<br /><br />The Torah even tells us that there will be rich and there will be poor people. And *all* the people give 10% not more than 20%... no matter their income, they give a flat rate.<br /><br />Why can government tax some people more? How does that make any sense? Afterall... this post started on the argument that frum Jews claiming that we're a charitable people say we should be happy for this bills passing, and I'm not so happy... It's not actually Torah true Judaism.frumskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02990363895869876238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-33281009852215397942010-04-26T17:45:13.204-04:002010-04-26T17:45:13.204-04:00>No. State run hospitals have guaranteed income...>No. State run hospitals have guaranteed income regardless of what they do there. There is no incentive to be better to try harder. Private hospitals know that each patient counts. Every life they save means better advertising for the hospital. Every new patient is more income. They must always come up with new inovative ideas to attract people to their facility versus the competition's. So, yes, for profit hospitals try to do a better job. <br /><br />Wait, they don't care about keeping down costs, though? How interesting...So, hospitals whose funding is guaranteed by the government care about cutting costs, even if it means letting babies die, while hospitals that only care about the moolah don't care about costs? Wouldn't it be more likely that there is some cost-benefit analysis in a profit model?<br /><br />Second, I don't think you understand how socialized medicine works. There are many different models. In Canada, for instance, doctors are not government employees, but work for themselves. The more patients and procedures they do and have, the more money they bill the government. So, they have an incentive to provide quality care.<br /><br />Third, I don't think you understand how Obamacare works, either. The government is not providing significantly more health care than it used to - there is only a marginal increase in the scope of Medicaid. Rather, the government is telling people they have to buy their own insurance. The Democrats did not so much reform health care in the US as they reformed health insurance in the US.<br /><br />>My cousin's husband went to med school in England. He described how doctors do as little as possible during their official work hours and then treat patients off the books for real money. <br /><br />And I grew up in Canada. I've never had a problem with any of my doctors, and I and my family have received excellent care.<br /><br />>You keep on asking about data, but you cannot show data that proves that people don't care, don't try as hard. The attitude is not something that cannot be seen on statistics. <br /><br />In other words, your argument can't be proven, it must be accepted at face value. How convenient. <br /><br />An alternative tactic might be to say, sure, there are no statistics available on the level of physician enthusiasm (though I suspect there are studies surveys somewhere), but you know what we can measure? Outcomes! Let's see if countries with socialized medicine are worse or better than our organized extortion racket here in the US! We would see whether Canada or Denmark or whoever has a lower life expectancy, or a higher infant mortality rate, etc. While that may not show how enthusiastic a country's doctor is, it will show us how good that system is, which makes the enthusiasm question academic.<br /><br />>I can't figure out what you are saying there. Are you saying that Soviet Union had comprehensive medicine because it was socialized or are you saying that Soviet Union was an anomaly?<br /><br />The USSR had socialized medicine, and also had bribery, black market, intimidation, line-jumping by VIPs and party officials. The reason it was bad was not because all socialized medicine countries are bad - witness every other developed country in the world - but because the USSR was a communist, totalitarian state.<br /><br />Your argument seems to be there will be bribery and line-jumping because that is the nature of socialized medicine. I'm saying, no, look at the bulk of countries that have socialized medicine. One will notice that they do not resemble the USSR.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-45565957790274005002010-04-26T17:44:58.462-04:002010-04-26T17:44:58.462-04:00>Who said by the rich? I said by money. If you ...>Who said by the rich? I said by money. If you don't have it, you could raise it. There are charity organizations set up just for that purpose. The only thing preventing anyone from getting the best in America is money. <br /><br />Oh, come on. In a society where how much money you can pay deems how much you are worth, who do you think is better off? Rich people or poor people who rely on the charity of rich people? Hmmm....<br /><br />You would oppose a government that imposed equality by law, instead of one that lets you be ranked by how much money you have?<br /><br />>In other countries it is legislature and the only way to acquire the best is by being unethical. Do you see the difference?<br /><br />Again, there are other countries on this planet, many of them with high standards of living, developed economies, and market and political freedoms. I'm pretty sure that <b>all</b> of them have versions of socialized medicine far more socialized than Obamacare. As far as I can tell, these programs are all popular, and considered essential to the people of those countries. The Conservative Party in the UK, for instance, is running on a platform promising to preserve the NHS from spending cuts. The Republican Party here opposed the Affordable Care Act partly because they claimed it would make cuts to Medicare. <br /><br />I haven't heard the peasants of these wealthy European or Asian or North American countries crying out against the rampant corruption and line jumping that is being perpetrated against them by the party elite or the politburo or whatever.<br /><br />>Had Obama said the truth and said now everyone can see a doctor for coughs and sniffles, but more advanced real life saving care would be rationed and accessable to fewer people, no one would have voted for it. But that is what we are getting.<br /><br />Well, the basic healthcare guarantees more than coughs and sniffles, but yeah, it's pretty basic. And this is pretty much what the Administration and the Democrats claimed. What's the problem?<br /><br />Acc. to you, money should be the sole determinant, and for advanced special luxury care, it will be. You should be happy.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-47950151330494194422010-04-26T15:18:16.652-04:002010-04-26T15:18:16.652-04:00I don't believe you are getting me back into t...I don't believe you are getting me back into this again. Obviously you are so blind that nothing I could do to open your eyes.<br /><br />"Whereas, access to better doctors should be bought by the rich, dammit! All this bribing is so unseemly."<br />Who said by the rich? I said by money. If you don't have it, you could raise it. There are charity organizations set up just for that purpose. The only thing preventing anyone from getting the best in America is money. In other countries it is legislature and the only way to acquire the best is by being unethical. Do you see the difference?<br /><br />"So, a system of health care rationing that apportions any and all health care (basic or advanced) based on who has more money is preferable to one where basic health care is provided to all, regardless of monetary wealth, and more advanced care is still available to one with greater wealth? "<br />Had Obama said the truth and said now everyone can see a doctor for coughs and sniffles, but more advanced real life saving care would be rationed and accessable to fewer people, no one would have voted for it. But that is what we are getting.<br /><br />"LOL, so essentially, for some reason, state run hospitals that ensure free or discounted healthcare care only about saving money, while privately funded for-profit hospitals care only about saving lives. Oh, ye noble rich people! How we have misjudged you!"<br />No. State run hospitals have guaranteed income regardless of what they do there. There is no incentive to be better to try harder. Private hospitals know that each patient counts. Every life they save means better advertising for the hospital. Every new patient is more income. They must always come up with new inovative ideas to attract people to their facility versus the competition's. So, yes, for profit hospitals try to do a better job. <br /><br />My cousin's husband went to med school in England. He described how doctors do as little as possible during their official work hours and then treat patients off the books for real money. <br /><br />You keep on asking about data, but you cannot show data that proves that people don't care, don't try as hard. The attitude is not something that cannot be seen on statistics.<br /><br /> "Again, there are countries with socialized medicine far more comprehensive than ours - how are they doing? Is it like living in the Soviet Union?"<br /><br />I can't figure out what you are saying there. Are you saying that Soviet Union had comprehensive medicine because it was socialized or are you saying that Soviet Union was an anomaly?mlevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831542484906424230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-61857995470395024532010-04-26T14:46:41.239-04:002010-04-26T14:46:41.239-04:00>The tax paying public, Dr. Jennssen, wants to ...>The tax paying public, Dr. Jennssen, wants to know who gave you the right to spend their hard earned money on making the already doomed baby breath for an extra hour?<br /><br />LOL, so essentially, for some reason, state run hospitals that ensure free or discounted healthcare care only about saving money, while privately funded for-profit hospitals care only about saving lives. Oh, ye noble rich people! How we have misjudged you!<br /><br />So, in your Danish hellscape, not only are the doctors and hospital administrators monsters, but the taxpaying public as well. The taxpayers would apparently protest (nay, revolt! - that money should be spent on killing their parents!) if too much effort was expended on saving the lives of babies. Cause, you know, it's Denmark.<br /><br />Second, even if, arguendo, we accept the notion that Danes care more about saving money than saving lives (ALSO, AT NO POINT HAVE YOU PROVEN THAT THESE COUNTRIES ACTUALLY DO EXPEND LESS EFFORT IN THESE CASES - YOU ARE ARGUING FROM YOUR INTUITION, WHICH ALL REPORTED DATA HAS INDICATED IS WRONG - so really we're assuming the truth of an argument that is based on several fallacies), why do you assume that Americans would make the same value judgment? Are we not more moral than those pre-pubescent aborters?<br /><br />>All it means that all citizen are able to access care for coughs and snifles, but when it's a more serious condition it's back to power. The more powerful one is, the better medical care one gets. In our, US system, power is defined by money. <br /><br />So, a system of health care rationing that apportions any and all health care (basic or advanced) based on who has more money is preferable to one where basic health care is provided to all, regardless of monetary wealth, and more advanced care is still available to one with greater wealth? That is just so ridiculous. You say you can't stand a system of health care rationing dependent on bribery, but you're fine with the out and out purchase of it by money? What's the difference? The lack of equal access to pricing information? <br /><br />>You bribe to get access to a better doctor, or you bribe to get ahead in line or you bribe to gain access to the limited supply to drugs. <br /><br />Whereas, access to better doctors should be bought by the rich, dammit! All this bribing is so unseemly.<br /><br />Again, there are countries with socialized medicine far more comprehensive than ours - how are they doing? Is it like living in the Soviet Union?Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-41602357190336178192010-04-26T13:03:08.431-04:002010-04-26T13:03:08.431-04:00"At some point, will you actually explain to ..."At some point, will you actually explain to me how a state that ensures that all their citizens receive quality health care is a state that devalues human life, while a state that says "Screw you! I've got mine, you illegal wetback parasite that lives in a free Medicare cadillac!" is a paragon of humanism?"<br /><br />That's what you are not getting, socialized medicine does not mean "quality health care for all its citizen". All it means that all citizen are able to access care for coughs and snifles, but when it's a more serious condition it's back to power. The more powerful one is, the better medical care one gets. In our, US system, power is defined by money. It's a straight forward exchange of services system. I give you money and you provide me with the service. In the socialized system, where health care is "provided for all", one must obtain that health care by bribery and illegal payments and etc. You bribe to get access to a better doctor, or you bribe to get ahead in line or you bribe to gain access to the limited supply to drugs. We already witnessed some of that corruption last year when there was a limited supply for swine flu vaccine, yet, certain people received a shot ahead of others. And to justify getting ahead of others, some people were forced to receive the shot against their wills.mlevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831542484906424230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-26445715064481721372010-04-26T12:51:43.034-04:002010-04-26T12:51:43.034-04:00VP - funny. Except you got the conversation betwee...VP - funny. Except you got the conversation between the doctor and the administrator wrong. The conversation would go something like that.<br /><br />Dr. Jennssen, it had come to our attention that you are spending way too much time attending the babies who have no hope of survival. As you already know this hospital is underfunded and understaffed. The governor and the voting public demand to know on how we spend our money. Please tell me how I can justify $1500 you just spent on a baby that died three hours later. Here is the bill for the services that your decision had cost this hospital. You have used X amount of drugs. You have used Y machines and you have used these many nurses and other doctors. The tax paying public, Dr. Jennssen, wants to know who gave you the right to spend their hard earned money on making the already doomed baby breath for an extra hour? I understand you are young and idealistic, but if you want to continue being affiliated with this medical facility, then I don't want to hear any more complains about you wasting the hospital's resources.mlevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831542484906424230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-11738024309705126452010-04-26T12:46:55.332-04:002010-04-26T12:46:55.332-04:00I read this over shabbos, meant to post it, forgot...I read this over shabbos, meant to post it, forgot, then received an email on this post, so here goes :<br /><br />This is just at tip of the iceberg of the fraud i'm talking about...<br /><br />http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0510/opinions-insurance-fraud-obamacare-medicare-on-my-mind.html<br /><br /><br />"The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services acknowledge $47 billion a year in "questionable claims" (i.e., fraud) in Medicare--about 10% of the program's $480 billion budget. Attorney General Eric Holder puts fraud even higher, at maybe $60 billion. In contrast, private-sector health insurers, which spend more than $600 billion a year on claims, keep the fraud rate to 1.5% (by my colleagues' and my estimate)."frumskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02990363895869876238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-15040261507490022372010-04-26T12:38:29.179-04:002010-04-26T12:38:29.179-04:00>Doesn't that make you wonder what kind of ...>Doesn't that make you wonder what kind of pressure parents are put under to consent to the other 84%?<br /><br />One can only imagine. Perhaps they threaten to kill their child! Oh, wait a second...<br /><br />>I was going to point out that Japan and Hong Kong are small homogeneous countries, I was going to point out that being in the top ten is great.<br /><br />I agree that being in the Top 10 is great. But, even if the USA is in the top 10 (WHICH IT IS NOT AND YOU HAVE NEVER RESPONDED TO THAT FACT), the fact remains that the other 9 countries there have socialized medicine. Which makes it EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO ARGUE THAT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WILL LEAD TO INCREASED INFANT MORTALITY WHICH WAS YOUR ORIGINAL ARGUMENT! Perhaps by putting the argument into CAPS will help you see it better.<br /><br />>So, go ahead rejoice in ObamaCare. Enjoy seeing us devouluing the human life to mere numbers. Enjoy seeing more and more money being sucked from the honest Americans to sustain burgeoning beauracrasy.<br /><br />At some point, will you actually explain to me how a state that ensures that all their citizens receive quality health care is a state that devalues human life, while a state that says "Screw you! I've got mine, you illegal wetback parasite that lives in a free Medicare cadillac!" is a paragon of humanism?Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-39688312752040293032010-04-26T12:28:30.006-04:002010-04-26T12:28:30.006-04:00Jesus Horatio Christ. You're an incredible mas...Jesus Horatio Christ. You're an incredible master of debate. It is impossible for me to argue against you, because you have this innate obtuseness that forbids you from reading anything I write except that which unpredictably tickles the anger-inducing parts of your brain. When I spend time actually following your links and researching the questions you pose - it's all useless. You're not even going to read them, no matter how convincing. You will find some throwaway line I wrote and make this the focus of your repeated but unsubstantiated argument again, without ever responding to the substance of my response. Watch again, as I will respond to your statements, and you will find some turn of phrase that magically proves your point, again and again, ad infinitum. Fortunately, my reserves of time are limitless.<br /><br />>I was going to respond to you again point by point, but I just can't get over that statement. They are humans. All doctors are humans. <br /><br />Yes, nowadays, most doctors are humans. In fact, my response could just as easily have been "because they are humans" - with the assumption being that humans don't just watch things die so as not fill out some paperwork. Obviously, this is a point of some disagreement between you and me. <br /><br />>If they dedicated too much time on a baby that was born legally stillborn, someone was going to notice. Time is money and needs to be covered by someone.<br /><br />Let me get this straight. You think somewhere in Denmark, a senior doctor is calling in an ob-gyn and interrogating him for saving too many babies. <br /><br />"Dr. Jennssen, we have been examining your file, and find that you have saved the lives of too many babies. As you know, we are Europeans socialists, and thus care only about using money efficiently. For some inexplicable reason (perhaps, as Aryans, we are secretly Nazis), we have decided that we like to have a nice quota of dead babies. You are not meeting your quota, doctor. Need I remind you what will happen to you if you don't correct this? Should your mother ever enter into a persistent vegetative state, we will keep your mother on life support, thereby ensuring you can never go on vacation without calling her beforehand again! (Maniacal Danish laughter.)"<br /><br />Get real. Second, and perhaps most obvious, I think you misunderstand what it means to report a baby as stillborn. As I alluded to earlier, it does not mean that if a baby is born too early, despite being alive, the doctor will go, <br /><br />Doctor: Oh, I'm sorry, your baby is dead, as it was born at four months and three weeks.<br />Baby: Waah! Waah!<br />Mother: Oh good, as a European, I would have aborted it anyway, when it reached pre-school age.<br />Father: (Talking loudly to be heard over the persistent cries of his dead child) You know, it's curious that we even went to an ob-gyn to have our baby delivered, seeing as he was already dead.<br /><br />If the baby is born alive, i.e. showing any signs of life, it is alive. And the doctors treat it as such, and do everything in their power to keep it that way. However, in some countries, like the Czech Republic (not Denmark, ironically), if the baby does die that day, under some circumstances, the doctor may not report it as a live birth. This does not mean that the baby was not born alive, or that the doctor figured "hey, why bother?" You're drawing some absurd line here - since the babies can be written off after they die as "stillborn", hospital administrators will therefore coerce doctors into letting them die, I suppose, as their parents look on. Because doctors are worse than regular people, maybe, I don't know.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-11360853062118837822010-04-21T11:28:17.924-04:002010-04-21T11:28:17.924-04:00"Because they're doctors."
I was go..."Because they're doctors."<br /><br />I was going to respond to you again point by point, but I just can't get over that statement. They are humans. All doctors are humans. And they have bosses and overseers and all others to answer to and to account for their time. If they dedicated too much time on a baby that was born legally stillborn, someone was going to notice. Time is money and needs to be covered by someone. <br /><br />Do you understand that by the fact alone that they consider breathing and heart beating human beings dead devalues the human life. Euthanizing babies and elderly or terminally ill is another step towards devaluing the human life. But you think it's ok "Because they're doctors."<br /><br />I gave a link where doctors in Brussels kill (Euthanize)babies and admit to doing it to 16% without parental consent. Doesn't that make you wonder what kind of pressure parents are put under to consent to the other 84%?<br /><br />I was going to point out that Japan and Hong Kong are small homogeneous countries, I was going to point out that being in the top ten is great. <br /><br />But why bother, you seem to think that simply "because they are doctors" they are somehow perfect and don't have agendas or their own sense of right and are never pressured to do anything or forced by the government to perform in a certain way. <br /><br />So, go ahead rejoice in ObamaCare. Enjoy seeing us devouluing the human life to mere numbers. Enjoy seeing more and more money being sucked from the honest Americans to sustain burgeoning beauracrasy.mlevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831542484906424230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-42161710012505487712010-04-18T16:51:09.792-04:002010-04-18T16:51:09.792-04:00>Wouldn't just that statement alone make do...>Wouldn't just that statement alone make doctor to be less alert and less trying? Why extend extra effort for something that is doomed anyway.<br /><br />Because they're doctors. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that just because they don't report them as live births until they live for more than 24 hours does not mean that they consider them dead as they come out of the womb and then put them in the trash. What do you think, that if the baby lives to be 120, the state still thinks that guy is dead because it was born before 22 weeks? <br /><br />>Yes, it was from 1995, but I also gave you link from the same government site from latter years which still support the original paper.<br /><br />The report from 1995 is the report that gives the reporting criteria for all the specific countries you indicated. The 2004 report (how can I read the whole thing, btw, I only see the abstract?) only seems to support your general thesis that "Infants born at the lowest gestational ages and birthweights have a large impact on overall U.S. infant mortality". It says nothing about report requirements. Maybe in the actual report, but I can only see the abstract? Moreover, I would find it very odd if the 2004 report did support the 1991 data, as many of the countries you listed did not exist in 2004.<br /><br />>Infanticide in the Netherlands. Doctors admit to 10 cases per year.<br /><br />CHN seems to be an advocacy group (without much of a budget) devoted to stopping euthanasia and the like, so right away I'm skeptical of any of their data, especially if it's not linked to anything useful, like a report. Regarding infanticide - the linked page just gives the name of a Dutch doctor quoted by a Calgary newspaper in 1992. I guess this is better than your 1995 report using 1991 data, but this is till pretty useless. Additionally, the Dutch doctor is talking about euthanasia of infants, of which there exist 10 cases (in 1992), and I'm not sure what your point is. Is this supposed to prove that in the Netherlands they abort babies up to 12 years old? Because euthanasia is not an abortion, and infants are not twelve year olds.<br /><br />>In the Netherlands, Groningen University Hospital has decided its doctors will euthanize children under the age of 12, if doctors believe their suffering is intolerable or if they have an incurable illness. <br /><br />This is from a Weekly Standard op-ed, which is even worse, but from 2004, which is better. I did a little googling and I found something called the Groningen Protocol which does seem to authorize euthanasia of <b>newborns</b>, not 12 year olds. It is illegal in the Netherlands to euthanize someone who can give consent but doesn't affirmatively give it, so I don't know where the 12 year old bit came from. In any case, Dutch euthanasia is pretty well known - they can euthanize old people there - what is the relevance of this to socialized medicine and neonatal care?<br /><br />Regarding the Belgian euthanasia thing, I can't find any source for it, other than something called expat news, which doesn't have the article, and no link to the report. If true, it would appear that Belgium has interesting and controversial euthanasia policies for babies under one years old. But this says nothing about abortions, and certainly nothing about 12 year olds. It also says nothing about your assertion that doctors in Western Europe are discouraged from reviving babies, and says nothing about your larger point that neonatal care in Western Europe is worse than neonatal care here.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-10895537035380494952010-04-18T15:55:53.819-04:002010-04-18T15:55:53.819-04:00>Actually statistically speaking US is ahead of...>Actually statistically speaking US is ahead of France and by a lot. US has an infant mortality rate of 6.32 and France has at 3.33. As I showed to you before, 55% of all American infant deaths are those in the severe preterm bracket. So, if you subtract 55% from 6.32 (because France doesn't include it in their data) you are left with infant mortality rate of 2.84 which is lower than France's. <br /><br />No. Just because some premature babies counted as live births by the US are not counted by France, does not mean that France does not count any premature babies as being live births, which seems to be what you are assuming. In fact, since we know that France does count babies that are born after 22 weeks or weigh more than 500 g upon birth we do know that there are premature babies born in France that are counted as live births. If you factor that information in, you will find that France's would drop further, if you excluded those babies. <b>You are assuming that the 55% of infant mortality takes place before 22 weeks, which intuitively is not true.</b><br /><br />With regard to France (sigh, again), the 2009 report I mentioned specifically takes into account the differences in reporting, and concludes that even if you discounted babies born before 22 weeks from both France and the US, France would <b>still</b> have a <b>lower infant mortality rate</b>. France's would be 3.9, while the US's would be 5.8.<br /><br />The report you cite (2004, btw) also does not say that 55% of infant mortality occurs before the 22nd week, but before the 32nd week, two and a half months later. As I said before, one would probably assume that more premature babies would be born between 22 and 37, than between 0 and 22, and I would assume that holds largely true as between weeks 22 and 32. However, why take my word for it? As I previously showed, the (2009) report I indicated finds that it is unlikely that the differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the difference in rates, because for that to be true, one would have to assume that countries with rates below 5.0 are all underreporting their infant deaths by more than a third, which is unlikely. <br /><br />>That would place US as number five between Japan and Hong Kong. <br /><br />Even assuming your analysis is correct, which I hope by now I have conclusively refuted for the last time, this would still place the US behind countries like Japan, Singapore and Sweden, all countries with considerably more government intervention than Obamacare. <b>Remember</b>, I never asserted that socialized medicine necessarily has a salutary effect on a country's infant mortality rate - you asserted that it had a negative effect. But even according to your crazy analysis of the numbers from outdated reports, there exist countries with socialized medicine that do better. QED.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-53322490080885042302010-04-16T10:42:11.268-04:002010-04-16T10:42:11.268-04:00http://www.chninternational.com/chnarch1.htm#INFAN...http://www.chninternational.com/chnarch1.htm#INFANTICIDE%20IN%20THE%20NETHERLANDS:<br /><br />Infanticide in the Netherlands. Doctors admit to 10 cases per year.<br /><br />http://www.chninternational.com/now_they_want_to_euthanize_child.htm<br /><br />"In the Netherlands, Groningen University Hospital has decided its doctors will euthanize children under the age of 12, if doctors believe their suffering is intolerable or if they have an incurable illness. But what does that mean? In many cases, as occurs now with adults, it will become an excuse not to provide proper pain control for children who are dying of potentially agonizing maladies such as cancer, and doing away with them instead. As for those deemed "incurable"--this term is merely a euphemism for killing babies and children who are seriously disabled."<br /><br />http://www.chninternational.com/uk_belgium_assisted_suicide.htm<br /><br />"BRUSSELS – About half of the 300 deaths of infants under the age of one are the result of active life termination. This emerged from a study by Professor Veerle Provoost of the University of Ghent.Provoost examined the medical files of about 300 babies. She also interviewed the acting physicians about the exact cause of death. In about 150 cases the baby's life had been actively terminated.This involves stopping treatment or administering a fatal dose of opiates. In 9 percent of cases products were explicitly administered to end the child's life.These cases were babies with no chance of survival, or, in 30 percent of these cases, little hope of having an acceptable quality of life. In most cases (84 percent) the decision was made in consultation with the parents."<br /><br />That means that in 16% of the time doctors decided and just killed the babies without even informing the parents.mlevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831542484906424230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-80277214390777660022010-04-16T09:42:20.477-04:002010-04-16T09:42:20.477-04:00"from both sides, the US still has a higher i..."from both sides, the US still has a higher infant mortality rate than France, and most of Western Europe."<br /><br />Actually statistically speaking US is ahead of France and by a lot. US has an infant mortality rate of 6.32 and France has at 3.33. As I showed to you before, 55% of all American infant deaths are those in the severe preterm bracket. So, if you subtract 55% from 6.32 (because France doesn't include it in their data) you are left with infant mortality rate of 2.84 which is lower than France's. That would place US as number five between Japan and Hong Kong. <br /><br />"You said you thought France counts only babies born after 30 days. Turned out to be not true. "<br /><br />I said I wasn't sure, because I did my research a long time ago. I said I think it's France. I did not say It is France. The word think showed that I wasn't sure.<br /><br />"Then you said Western European doctors don't care about letting babies die, which you have yet to prove."<br /><br />True, I didn't show you that, yet. But don't you think it already shows carelessness and lack of honor of human life if they categorize babies born under 500 grams as already dead? Wouldn't just that statement alone make doctor to be less alert and less trying? Why extend extra effort for something that is doomed anyway.<br /><br />" which was to a 1995 report. "<br /><br />Yes, it was from 1995, but I also gave you link from the same government site from latter years which still support the original paper.<br /><br />"Then you said you were only offering examples of Western Europe."<br /><br />You gave me your own findings on France. I don't see why I need to go into every country to support my point. France, a Western European country with socialized medicine does not consider babies born under 500 grams to be alive. In the United States, babies born under one pound are considered alive. 500 grams is over ONE pound and one ounce.mlevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831542484906424230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-22527886221359647112010-04-16T03:14:32.214-04:002010-04-16T03:14:32.214-04:00>Also, let me remind you that my initial argume...>Also, let me remind you that my initial argument was that upto 30 days after life birth the baby is considered a still birth, but I brought it down that some countries don't consider it a life birth for upto 3 months after birth. <br /><br />What are you smoking? You asserted that you can't compare other countries' mortality rates to the US because some of them (e.g. France. which doesn't) only count live births after 30 days. You brought me down a 15 year old report documenting the state of affairs in 1991, almost 20 years ago. Many of the countries which you listed <b>no longer exist</b>. The only countries that had the 3 months reporting requirement were countries in the former Soviet Union. Well, a lot has changed in Eastern Europe in the last 20 years. Many of these countries have joined the EU, and nearly all of them have adopted the WHO standard. This is, again, besides the fact the CDC concludes that any discrepancy in reporting requirements wouldn't provide statistical basis for the US' high mortality rate, and that all the countries you cite from that report have higher rates than even the US. Moreover, you have yet to respond to the fact that most countries in Western Europe share the US' definition of live birth, and have lower infant mortality rates. In fact, even in your woefully out of date report, Sweden, a country with one of the lowest mortality rates, has absolutely no time delay requirement for considering a baby a live birth.<br /><br />>That skews the statistics big time especially since most infant mortality happens to babies born very early and/or very low birth weight. <br /><br />I've dealt with this ad nauseam.<br /><br />>Let me also remind you that the reason we went in this direction because you claimed that their socialized medicine is better than our American in preventing the infant mortality, and I brought in statistics to show that it is not true. I nullified your argument.<br /><br />Are you serious? There's a documented record of our dialogue here. There's not even room here for a difference of opinion. This is pure revisionism on your part. The first mention of the treatment of babies in socialized medicine was you, at 11.30 pm on April 13.<br /><br />"Had this baby been born in a country with a socialized medicine, she would now have been six feet under rather than learning how to count."<br /><br />Here you are, clearly asserting that the US is better than other countries with socialized medicine at treating infants.<br /><br />I responded, that in fact, the US has a relatively low ranking compared to socialized welfare countries. I explictly said that I was not willing to conclude that the reason for their high rankings was due to socialized medicine. All I concluded was that socialized medicine was not responsible for making them worse, the direct opposite of your assertion.Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-89497591861004570422010-04-16T03:14:15.598-04:002010-04-16T03:14:15.598-04:00mlevin,
Dude, seriously. You have to read what I ...mlevin,<br /><br />Dude, seriously. You have to <b>read</b> what I am writing. Then consider what I am saying, and <b>then</b> respond. I feel like I'm pissing into the wind. <br /><br />>You yourself said that France goes by upto 500 grams. <br /><br />Le sigh. What else did I say? Can you only read things that you think support your opinions, or are you just pretending to be this obtuse? I also said, that even if you take away all the babies born before 22 weeks (i.e., before France considers them a live birth) from both sides, the US still has a higher infant mortality rate than France, and most of Western Europe. <br /><br />I also said, that the CDC report concluded that differences in reporting requirements are not the cause of the United States' low rankings.<br /><br />>You don't really expect me to go country by country and post all of their data collection methods and how they are compared with US. Do you? I supplied you with a few to back up my point. I think it is enough.<br /><br />No, it's not enough, you old so-and-so! Which countries did you supply?<br /><br />First, you asserted that babies born pre-term outside of the United States have less of a chance of surviving than those born in the United States.<br /><br />You said you thought France counts only babies born after 30 days. Turned out to be not true. <br /><br />Then you said Western European doctors don't care about letting babies die, which you have yet to prove.<br /><br />Then you said you were <b>only</b> offering examples of Western Europe.<br /><br />Then you proceeded to only offer examples from Eastern Europe, as it turns out, most of Western Europe has the same reporting definitions as the US.<br /><br />You gave me Latvia, a <b>former Soviet republic</b>, which ranks on the UN list at 57, and on the CIA list at 64. Well below the United States. I don't know how you think that proving that a country with a higher infant mortality rate than the US also has a narrower definition of a live birth helps your case that countries with a lower mortality rate than the US have narrower definitions that make a statistical difference.<br /><br />Then there was Hungary, another Eastern European country, which also ranks below the US, at 40th (UN) and 62 (CIA). Ditto.<br /><br />Then there was Czechoslovakia, a country that is difficult to compare to the US, as it no longer exists. Which led me to follow your link, which was to a 1995 report. It is now 2010. The report I provided was from 2009. In any case, the former Czechoslovakia is also an Eastern European country.<br /><br />You then mentioned the former USSR, which was composed of countries of which none of whom are in Western Europe. All of them now rank much lower than the US. So ditto. Russia, the most developed, clocks in at 81 and 73.<br /><br />And somewhere in there you also asserted that children can be aborted in the Netherlands up to their bat mitzvah. Also false.<br /><br />Do you see why the old data on Eastern European countries that have higher infant mortality rates than the US (even according to their own selective data) you provided, does not help to prove your case that the socialized welfare states of Western Europe with their lower infant mortality rates are worse at treating babies because of socialized medicine but hide it through narrow definitions of live birth?Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-68710742922803901712010-04-16T01:05:21.935-04:002010-04-16T01:05:21.935-04:00Vox,
"First, don't these problems exist ...Vox,<br /><br />"First, don't these problems exist with any taxes you pay?"<br /><br />Yes. They are all forms of extortion.Dante Infernohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00787906290384039733noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-55453696375634414412010-04-16T00:46:10.334-04:002010-04-16T00:46:10.334-04:00"No, because the countries referred to are Po..."No, because the countries referred to are Poland and the Czech Republic. "<br /><br />You yourself said that France goes by upto 500 grams. France is not Poland or Chech. France is above US in infant mortality. You don't really expect me to go country by country and post all of their data collection methods and how they are compared with US. Do you? I supplied you with a few to back up my point. I think it is enough. Also, let me remind you that my initial argument was that upto 30 days after life birth the baby is considered a still birth, but I brought it down that some countries don't consider it a life birth for upto 3 months after birth. That skews the statistics big time especially since most infant mortality happens to babies born very early and/or very low birth weight. <br /><br />Let me also remind you that the reason we went in this direction because you claimed that their socialized medicine is better than our American in preventing the infant mortality, and I brought in statistics to show that it is not true. I nullified your argument.<br /><br />" What does a person's ability to pay or how much they've worked have to do with whether we should save their lives?" <br /><br />Who said we shouldn't save their lives? I said that it shouldn't be placed on the same priority as those who work for their living. If there is one doctor and two patients, the one who works/worked should be a priority. That should also apply if there is a shortage of medicine or pain relieving, nursing care, bed availability and etc. <br /><br />When I gave birth to my second daughter it was a slow season in newborns and hospital had many empty rooms. I was given a room all to my self as well as other hardworking americans. As I was walking through the hallways I noticed that there were two rooms packed with new mothers. Each room had 6 beds and they were all occupied. I asked the nurse why were some people given a room of their own, and there were empty rooms, while these two rooms were filled to a brim. She told me, these are the medicaid patients' rooms. I bet today doing something like that would be illegal.<br /><br />" Are you suggesting that we should set up a system of death panels that will evaluate individuals on the value they bring to society?"<br /><br />I said no such thing. I said priorities.<br /><br />"How many cheats and frauds do you really think there are? What percentage of people on social welfare programs do you think are screwing us?"<br /><br />I think there are millions of cheats and frauds. I think that at least half of teenage single mothers on government programs are cheats. I think that 25% of divorced mothers on government subsidies are cheats. <br /><br />I think that we should discontinue school lunch programs because government already provides families with foodstamps. And if children do not get enough food, then it's not the fault of the poverty but the fault of the negligent parents and children should be taken away from them. It is not a proper way to raise children. Eliminating this program would save us the tax payers over $9.3 billion.mlevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831542484906424230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-14292277898092593902010-04-15T13:44:48.803-04:002010-04-15T13:44:48.803-04:00Vox Populi- the point about the government and the...Vox Populi- the point about the government and the fraud is that it occurs, alot more than you care to beleive.<br /><br />You cant get statistics on this, becuase its not actually possible. I don't know anyone on welfare who actually deserves it. Not that they're undeserving cuz of eugenics or w/e.. but cuz they're actually CHEATING to get it.<br /><br />In the good-old days welfare and other social programs were hard to get. The government would do sporadic check ups (as per people I spoke to, who used to be on welfare about 30 years ago). And they would deduct a portion of the welfare check if someone had a luxury (car, TV, Cable etc).<br />Now the average "poor" person has cable TV, a car, Air conditioning, a cell-phone, a house etc... and guess who foots the bill? The taxpayer.<br /><br />Why in the world is it fair for someone who is receiving a hand-out to waste it on luxuries the average WORKER has to work hard to afford for themselves? Its so frustrating that I work so damn hard, get taxed a ridiculous amount, to pay for other peoples luxuries...<br /><br />Sorry... but if you aren't able to afford healthcare but you have Cable and a cell-phone, I dont feel bad for you. THe few people who don't have that, HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE ALREADY. like previously mentioned- the ER isn't allowed to reject a patient for their inability to pay.<br /><br />Thats all it is. <br /><br />This has nothign to do with class discrimination or anythign like htat. Irresponsibility and laziness is not something that should be promoted. We should *limit* government hand-outs, so they're only given out in extreme cases, not when cable watching, cell-phone using people claim poverty.<br /><br />Expanding health-care only allows for more people to spend their money frivilously, and fails to teach them how to get out of the dependency mess.frumskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02990363895869876238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-32728658000580627762010-04-15T13:00:55.105-04:002010-04-15T13:00:55.105-04:00>Do you see the statistical inconsistency?
No,...>Do you see the statistical inconsistency?<br /><br />No, because the countries referred to are Poland and the Czech Republic. Not every other country in the developed World, the vast majority of whom record live births exactly as does the United States. So, fine, I'm perfectly prepared to say that the United States compares favorably to Poland in infant mortality rates. The real point is, how does the US compare to Sweden or to Finland or to Norway or to the UK or to Canada? The data does not suggest, as per your assertion, that socialized medicine places babies, pre-term or otherwise, at any disadvantage. In fact, it seems to suggest the opposite. Though I am not willing to conclude that the reason is socialized medicine, I am willing to conclude that socialized medicine does not have a harmful effect on newborns.<br /><br />>"55% of all infant mortality is babies born under 32 weeks<br /><br />Look, I'm not a statistician, but I would assume, even in a 22 week reporting country, like the Czech Republic, more pre-term babies (before 32 weeks) will be born between 22 and 32 weeks than will be between 0-22 weeks. And, as the CDC has stated in their 2009 report, and as I mentioned in my last post "<b>it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking</b>".<br /><br />This is, of course, besides the point, because the Czech Republic, Poland, Latvia and whoever are not the countries bringing up the world's average here against the United States. And we are still being beaten in term and preterm baby care by states with socialized medicine and the same reporting requirements.<br /><br />>And yes, they should discriminate and treat them as second class citizen. They should constantly remind them that they are in the hospital due to the charitable nature of the tax paying Americans. <br /><br />Do you also believe in eugenics? What does a person's ability to pay or how much they've worked have to do with whether we should save their lives? Are you suggesting that we should set up a system of death panels that will evaluate individuals on the value they bring to society?<br /><br />"Sorry, Ms. Hernandez, but you're on welfare, so no chemotherapy for you" ?<br /><br />That isn't rationing health care?<br /><br />>Instead, we are getting ObamaCare where everyone will be treated equally and when there is a shortage of care there would be no discrimination between honest and hardworking people and those who are cheats and frauds.<br /><br />Arghh! Equality before the law, that scourge of freedom and democracy! Boo! Hiss! Again, though, we're back to the same question: How many cheats and frauds do you really think there are? What percentage of people on social welfare programs do you think are screwing us?Vox Populinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-14672146732730778132010-04-15T01:55:20.263-04:002010-04-15T01:55:20.263-04:00You've asked me what I want, what I want no po...You've asked me what I want, what I want no politician will have the balls to do.<br /><br />I want there to be a difference between medicaid systems for those who never worked (or only worked for a year or two) and never paid any taxes into the system (house wives with working husbands should be treated as tax payers) and those who worked all of their lives and paid taxes but still ended up with either a small nest egg or without one. The ones who worked should be given priority over care and doctor choice and should have a larger pool of available choice. Those who did not should be treated as freeloaders and relegated to the lower importance status, with fewer choices available. For example if there was a car accident and two patients were rolled into the emergency room, the one who paid or pays taxes should be given the priority over the one who is a freeloader. Same goes for expectant mothers. Both are about to have a third baby. The first one is on government support and never had a husband, the other is a tax paying housewife. Doctors and nurses should give priority to the taxpaying one. And yes, they should discriminate and treat them as second class citizen. They should constantly remind them that they are in the hospital due to the charitable nature of the tax paying Americans. Buttom line they should make them uncomfortable and feel guilty for stealing other people's money.<br /><br />By the way, I want the same discrimination to apply to those using FoodStamps/Benefit card and all other government support money. <br /><br />Instead, we are getting ObamaCare where everyone will be treated equally and when there is a shortage of care there would be no discrimination between honest and hardworking people and those who are cheats and frauds. And yes, illegal immigrants fall into the cheats and frauds category and their children should not have access to our public school education or our school lunch or our library, and if hospitalized they should be send back to where they came from as soon as doctor discharges them from the hospital.mlevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831542484906424230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-34966163477551168432010-04-15T01:05:03.509-04:002010-04-15T01:05:03.509-04:00I can't believe I'm actually researching t...I can't believe I'm actually researching this again. Here are a some things I have found. I gave you a web address and a quote from that page. But it's late and I need to go to sleep. <br /><br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17569269<br /><br />"55% of all infant mortality is babies born under 32 weeks"<br /><br />http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/24/3/583<br /><br />"Conclusion. Differences in birth registration practices for infants weighing <1500 g are primarity responsible for the poor, deteriorating performance by the US in the International rankings of neonatal mortality rates."<br /><br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2486783/?page=3<br /><br />"Latvia imposes a minimum life span of seven completed days"<br /><br />"Furthermore in Netherlands, a child born alive before the minimum period should survive for 24 hours postpartnum before being declared a life birth"<br /><br />"These vary largely by country ranging from 24 hours to for registration of life birth (Czechoslovakia and Hungary) to three months (former USSR)."mlevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831542484906424230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-25284321079012807112010-04-15T00:36:27.189-04:002010-04-15T00:36:27.189-04:00Before doing all the research I did a few years ag...Before doing all the research I did a few years ago, I would like to point out what you just posted:<br /><br />"These countries count as stillborn fetuses that are born before 22 weeks of gestation, and/or weigh less than 500 grams."<br /><br />That means if a baby in these countries is born breathing, but dies later if he was before 22 weeks or under 500 grams he would still be counted as a still born.<br /><br />Let me remind you that one pound is 460 grams. We, in United States, have babies born and put in the incubators who are under one pound. We count them as life births. 500 grams is more than one pound and one ounce. And they consider it a miscarriage or a still birth. Do you see the statistical inconsistency?mlevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01831542484906424230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3683171330083869803.post-62361385124422306362010-04-14T18:44:25.790-04:002010-04-14T18:44:25.790-04:00>Also, doctors in Western Europe are strongly d...>Also, doctors in Western Europe are strongly discourage from reviving newborn babies and the policy is not to rush to save their lives. <br /><br />This reminds me of what you wrote about the Netherlands earlier:<br /><br />>Well, in many Western European countries doctors are allowed to "abort" babies after birth and in one of them (I believe it is Netherlands) parents and doctors are allowed to abort the "fetus" up to the age of 12 years old.<br /><br />Needless to say, the Netherlands does not sanction the murder of pre-pubescents. Dutch mothers can get fetus aborted up to 21 weeks in the pregnancy, or 24 weeks if urgent medical care is required. So, you're off by 13 and 1/2 years, there.<br /><br />Regarding the doctors in Western Europe, do you have any proof, that their policy is to let babies die?Vox Populinoreply@blogger.com