Health Care Myths »
Posted By Wolfie2007 5 months, 1 week ago in NewsThe Obama administration is now attempting the biggest overhaul of health care since Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.
But the health care reform debate is riddled with misleading myths taken as fact, myths that are torquing the debate beyond recognition, from the U.S.’s supposedly poor infant mortality rates, who really gets medical care, the level of uninsured, who really pays for insurance, who actually can afford insurance and wait times for surgeries.
Read Full Story at emac.blogs.foxbusiness.com »
828 Views Share Story 172 Comments Report
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 154 of 172 Comments (view all)
-
71%
gwhiddon5 months, 1 week ago
-
-
85%
mesodude5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Debunking Canadian Health Care Myths
Reply
As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one.
Often I'll avoid answering, regardless of the questioner's nationality. To choose one or the other system usually translates into a heated discussion of each one's merits, pitfalls, and an intense recitation of commonly cited statistical comparisons of the two systems.
Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.
Yet, the debate rages on. Indeed, it has reached a fever pitch since President Barack Obama took office, with Americans either dreading or hoping for the dawn of a single-payer health care system. Opponents of such a system cite Canada as the best example of what not to do, while proponents laud that very same Canadian system as the answer to all of America's health care problems. Frankly, both sides often get things wrong when trotting out Canada to further their respective arguments.
As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.
Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.
In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.
Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.
The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.
continues--
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/07-0
-
-
69%
k9kssr5 months, 1 week ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I just pray the health care plan is given more thought than Obama's stimulus plan, that congress does get to read it before voting on it, and there is an opportunity for public debate prior to it's coming to a vote. NO CRAM DOWN! The Stimulus has been such a debacle regarding our money, but heaven help us, this is our health!!! No comparison.
Reply-
83%
mesodude5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Crazy right-wing myths about Obama 2.0
Reply
The post-inauguration edition of odd things conservatives believe about Obama. Teleprompters! Hitler Youth! Satan!
During the presidential campaign nutty right-wing rumors about Barack Obama swamped the Internet. Via mass e-mails, fearful conservatives were told that the Democratic nominee was a dangerous radical and a secret Muslim who would take the oath of office with his hand on the Koran. A whole conspiracy cult embraced the belief that Obama was not a natural-born U.S. citizen and was thus ineligible for the presidency. The Obama campaign had to build a Web site just to debunk the viral mythmaking.
After winning the election, President Obama, who was born in Hawaii (see his birth certificate here) was sworn in on Abraham Lincoln's Bible. He went to church on Easter Sunday. The supposed Manchurian candidate can't even get Gitmo closed properly, much less lead the Senate in a chorus of "The Internationale."
But the mythmaking has not stopped. The wheels of rumor grind fast, but they grind exceedingly dumb. Marooned on a grassy knoll of the mind, the right has spun new and scarier fantasies about the president, tales that would send any patriotic, gun-toting Christian fleeing across the border to Canada, if only the Canadians weren't so damn socialist. We present for your inspection, and then debunk, or paw at in desultory fashion, a dozen of the choicest conspiracy theories to gain traction since Jan. 20. We could print more, but we grow weary. (And by the way, Obama is still a Muslim foreigner.)
continues...
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/08/obama...
-
-
90%
reallypsst5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good information wolfie,but like all government reforms and programs we don't know what kind of impact it will have until its well implemented, and it takes years to evaluate an enormous reform and in saying so the pros and cons are just speculation at this point in time,what is most important is everyone has a fair chance of receiving health care !
Reply -
67%
lovemylibs5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Myth: “The uninsured can’t afford to buy coverage.”
Reply
My daughter is a perfect example of this. She does not have health insurance because we choose not to pay for it. She is a healthy young woman and has not had insurance for the last three years. We were very proactive before making this decision by going to a local immediate care center and negotiating some basic rates for visits and other common expenditures. Over the last three years, health care expenditures for her have totalled about $1,100. Where can you buy health care insurance for under $400 per year?
Should her position as an uninsured American even be counted in the bogus total of 46 million uninsured?-
-
PetesakeComment removed: Hard Banned15 Replies
-
100%
Candida5 months ago
-
86%
mesodude5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Oklahoman Repeats Outdated Health Care Myths
Reply
More than 36 percent or 1.1 million Oklahomans went without health insurance from 2007-2008.
The cost of health insurance has risen 61 percent since 1996. That means patients pay more on co-pays for office visits and procedures.
Health insurance companies are raising prices while reducing benefits, and, as for-profit institutions, they will never stop this business model unless forced to by law.
Finally, as everyone should know, Americans spend about twice as much on health care in relation to other industrialized countries, but our country ranks low in infant mortality rates, life expectancy, and medical outcomes, such as heart disease. Much of the money spent in medical treatment, of course, funds the health insurance industry and its massive profits.
None of this information made it into a cheap-shot editorial (“Unhealthy view: Demonizing risk firms gets absurd,” April 26, 2009) published by The Oklahoman Sunday criticizing state Sens. Jay Paul Gumm (D-Durant), pictured right, and Andrew Rice (D-Oklahoma City), pictured left, for trying to bring just a little bit of government regulation to the health insurance industry. Both have worked, for example, to get insurance companies to cover the medical costs associated with autism in Oklahoma.
Of course, trying to help people with medical needs makes you one of “most extreme members of the Legislature,” according to the editorial. The editorial does concede this: “Coverage schemes are designed to maintain solvency.” Here’s another way to say this: Coverage schemes are designed to put company profits and CEO salaries before medical treatments.
The editorial engages in all the same clichéd, right-wing hackneyed myths about health care. We’re heard it all before. The mandates will increase premiums. Extremists really want a European-style health care system, which would force people to wait months for procedures. The American government, of course, can never fix problems, especially this one. It’s best to let big companies and the market decide what type of health care you receive.
The editorial states:
http://www.okiefunk.com/node/566 -
88%
Ciera-Marie5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You do realize that she now will be penalized by the health insurance companies because she's been uninsured for the last three years?
Reply
It is very true that the MAJORITY of the uninsured can not afford health insurance. A lot of uninsured work for places that do not provide health insurance. Look at non profits. I'm not talking non profits like Red Cross, United Way, Catholic Charities or Lutheran Social Services. I'm talking true non profits where 100% of what you donate goes to that non profit. I can tell you this no foundation or grant will cover administrative costs like employee benefits including health insurance.
-
-
beavis617bComment removed: Retracted by user2 Replies
-
91%
Beau78905 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This article begins with this assertion:
Reply
Most everyone agrees that the U.S. health system is broken and that the uninsured must get coverage.
But fixing the health system should be based on the facts, not on a statistical faith-based initiative mounted to ram through reform, where the data is either more nuanced on closer look or the statements made are simply not true.
None of the "myths" that the article supposedly debunks (and many of these rebuttals can be debated) change what the article itself admits: that "the healthcare system is broken and that the uninsured must get coverage."
For instance, the article talks about nationalized healthcare creating long waits. There are no options being discussed in Congress that get rid of private insurance and institute nationalized healthcare. The article's arguing against a plan that has already been ruled out. -
100%
Newperson5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The article said.
Reply
Everyone has access to health care. They may not have health insurance, but the law mandates everyone who shows up at emergency rooms must be treated, insurance or not, he reports.
Ok That is true to a degree but. All they will do is put a bandage on you and tell you to go see your dr. That is where you pay up front or you do not get in the door.
This health care thing is not going to be a easy fix. I lost my mother a few years back to bad health. We kids tried to pay for her healthcare and we did. It was hard and very costly.
The sad thing is she was aproved for medacare three weeks after we buried her. We paid for that also. My point is the system is screwed up now and needs to be fixed. People should not have to be sick for two years before thay can get help. -
100%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "The United States counts all births if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size or duration of life, notes Bernardine Healy, a former director of the National Institutes of Health and former president and chief executive of the American Red Cross (Healy noted this information in a column for U.S. News & World Report).
Reply
And that includes stillbirths, which many other countries don’t report."
Why would sillbirths be included among live births? Doesn't "still" mean no movement, no life? -
100%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "Moreover, the ranking doesn’t take into account that the US has a diverse, heterogeneous population, Healy adds, unlike, say, in Iceland, which tracks all infant deaths regardless of factor, but has a population under 300,000 that is 94% homogenous.
Reply
Finland and Japan do not have the ethnic and cultural diversity of the U.S.’s 300 mn-plus citizens."
What has that got to do with anything? Is the author saying that infants of homogeneous and/or small populations are more hardy?-
57%
lovemylibs5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I took that part to mean that genetics play a part in longevity. It is much like cholesterol. Some people can eat a diet high in cholesterol and still have good readings on tests for HDL and LDL. Historically speaking, Asians outlive Europeans. America's population is more European than Asian.
Reply
-
-
100%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "Plus, the U.S. has a high rate of teen pregnancies, teens who smoke, who take drugs, who are obese and uneducated, all factors which cause higher infant mortality rates."
Reply
In my view, this is an argument for universal health care, not against it. Perhaps those teens and their babies could have been saved with better health care, not to mention that some of those pregnancies could have been avoided in the first place with readily available information. -
100%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Moreover, we’re not losing healthy babies, as the scary stats imply. Most of the babies that die are either premature or born seriously ill, including those with congenital malformations."
Reply
I'm pretty sure that the seriously ill babies die in other countries as well, and not the healthy ones. Perhaps they just have fewer seriously ill babies as a result of proper prenatal care. -
100%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: “In several countries, such as in the United States, Canada and the Nordic countries, very premature babies (with relatively low odds of survival) are registered as live births, which increases mortality rates compared with other countries that do not register them as live births.”
Reply
So what's the excuse for falling behind those countries when the US outspends them significantly? -
100%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "The U.S. ranks much better on a measure that the World Health Organization says is more accurate, the perinatal mortality rate, defined as death between 22 weeks’ gestation and 7 days after birth. According to the WHO 2006 report on Neonatal and Perinatal Mortality, the U.S. comes in at 16th-and even higher if you knock out several tiny countries with tiny birthrates and populations, such as Martinique, Hong Kong, and San Marino."
Reply
Being 16th while having the highest health care expenditures is something to be proud of? Why would the small countries be knocked off the listing? What's the logic behind that? -
100%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Everyone has access to health care. They may not have health insurance, but the law mandates everyone who shows up at emergency rooms must be treated, insurance or not, he reports."
Reply
Does every hospital have an emergency department? Do emergency departments provide cancer treatment? How about open heart surgeries and follow-up treatment? Do they provide for the long-term needs of people with spinal cord injuries? -
75%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "Census figures also show that 18.3 mn of the uninsured were under 34 who may simply not think about the need for insurance, Sullivan reports."
Reply
Just because they are under 34, it doesn't mean that they are uninsured by choice. Some of them may be "uninsurable" because of preexisting conditions or too poor to buy insurance.
Still some of them, like lovemylib's daughter, may have chosen not to buy insurance. Why waste their money while healthy? After all, they can go to the emergency department and get treated at others' expense when needed, right? Should society abandon these people when they get really sick just because they were foolish or greedy?-
57%
lovemylibs5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You have totally implied something false here. My daughter does not go to the emergency room and get treated at others' expense. She goes to the immediate care center and pays a pre-negotiated fee for the basic services they offer. How many people even know of this option? How many uninsured try this tactic? Why would you classify this as foolish or greedy?
Reply
-
-
89%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "And of those 46 mn without insurance, an estimated 10 mn or so are non-U.S. citizens who may not be eligible, according to statistics from the Census Bureau), Sullivan reports."
Reply
OK, so there are only 36 million US citizens uninsured. Is that good? -
90%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "Many may be able to afford health insurance, but for whatever reason choose to not buy it. In 2007, an estimated 17.6 mn of the uninsured made more than $50,000 per year, and 10 mn of those made more than $75,000 a year, says Sally Pipes"
Reply
OK, so she says it. What backs up her numbers?
Suppose the numbers about the earnings are correct. Does it follow that these people can afford insurance? What if they have 5 children? $50,000/7 is not a lot. What if they have preexisting conditions and are "uninsurable"?
It is likely that a fair number of these people could, indeed, afford to buy insurance but for various reasons doesn't. They are healthy, young, and foolish, and they think they are invincible. Why should they "waste" their money on insurance? It's for suckers. Then they have a serious accident, like breaking their backs, while jumping into their own pool, and they become a burden on their families driving them to bankruptcy. Is that the kind of society Americans want? -
88%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "What is potentially the real number for the poor uninsured? According to a 2003 Blue Cross study, 8.2 mn Americans are actually without coverage for the long haul, because they are too poor to purchase health care, but earn too much to qualify for government assistance."
Reply
Is 8.2 million unintentional uninsured an acceptable number for a rich nation? -
88%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "But that does not mean that all 45 mn people spend every day of 2009 without insurance. It is a point estimate - on any particular day, there will be 45 mn individuals without health insurance."
Reply
Once again, if the 45 million uninsured consists of different people on any given day, is that an acceptable number? Any one of these uninsured people may come down with a very expensive illness on the day when he/she is uninsured and be driven to bankruptcy or even die because of lack or proper treatment. -
88%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Reply
And the cost of uncompensated care for the uninsured is “unlikely to have a substantial effect on private payment rates,” the CBO says, adding that shifting costs from uninsured to private insurance premiums is “likely to be relatively small.”'
Notice the weasel words: "unlikely" and "likely." In other words, they simply don't know. -
89%
Candida5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA: "Waiting time for elective surgery is lower in the US than in countries with nationalized health care.
Reply
In 2005, only 8% of U.S. patients reported waiting four months or more for elective surgery."
So what? Elective surgery is by definition the kind of surgery that the patient "elects" to have, that is, the kind that is not very urgent in the first place. So what if the waiting time is very short for plastic surgery, breast augmentation, etc. -
-
-
-
75%
CRYMTYPHON5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hobe!
Reply
That is very kind of you to offer to explain the article to Candida!
Candida seems to have gotten the impression that it is a bit of dim
playing around with statistics done for dishonest
lobbying reasons by the far right.
Can you set Candida straight?
Can you sit up straight?
Can you say 'HMO MOFO NOMO OBOMO GOGO' really fast 5 times?
Respectively too! Very really!
-
-
90%
Tangent0015 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What this article fails to address is the number of underinsured, just as unemployment figures don't count those underemployed.
Reply
An estimates 25 million Americans have only bare-bones coverage that will leave them destitute after a major accident or illness.
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday...
From the link: "...premiums for the underinsured were similar to or higher than those paid by people with adequate insurance, the researchers found." -
PetesakeComment removed: Hard Banned15 Replies
Submit a Story
Advertisement
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.