America's still the best

Cyclone85 · 05-13-2008, 02:43 PM

I have my thoughts on the subject, however, I am not willing to concede that we have the highest incarceration level in the world...yet. Are you talking about western civ only? Or, are you including Russia, China, Iran, and Cuba too? What are your sources?

Also, I sincerely hope you don't think I am partisan and annoying because that's the exact opposite of how I try to conduct myself in everyday life. I admit I do get riled up from time to time.

Originally Posted by sgallan

Cyclone 85 -

You didn't answer my question..... why do you think we have the worlds highest incarceration level?

PS - I am not interested in making this a partisan political discussion. That's your game not mine.

doublej · 05-13-2008, 02:51 PM

42 million or 9 million it doesn't matter. For the everyday Joe like us the cost are out of control. Something needs to be done. You can talk all the economics you want, with the market corrections or whatever but Healthcare is out of control. I'm not just talking about people not being covered either. My insurance for my family was over $9,000 this year. If we cut administrative costs by even 12% I save almost $100 a month. Plus the fact the people are losing everything over medical bills is hard for me to take. Most of the people aren't slackers, they are working folks like me who had a bad break and have lost big. I can no longer stand on the other side of this. I honestly don't have the answer but we pay people a whole lot of money to work on these kinds of things and they don't seem to be doing their jobs. It is no longer just the fact people can't afford it. It's the fact the we are being fleeced right before our eyes. Other large industrialized countries do it and do it well without breaking the banks. I'm am not a big govt type of guy but the medical industry doesn't seem to be checking itself like it should be. It's not a commodity that people can just take or leave.

FloggingSully · 05-13-2008, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

It's not 42-million uninsured....this was answered previously. It's much much less.

Matclone posted a link to a study by the CDC that said 42 million (the CDC doesn't count as the drive by media do they?) and you said that the number should be more like 9 million but didn't provide a source.

I'm not saying who's right and who isn't, but from reading this thread the 42 million seems to be the better supported number.

Cyclone85 · 05-13-2008, 04:24 PM

The U.S. Census Bureau reports an even higher number. However, states and various non-partisan think tanks have been studying the uninsured for years. For example, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 45% of uninsured people will *regain* coverage within 4-months. Various state agencies have conducted multi-state surveys which revealed similar figures and suggested that the uninsured rate was less than 10%, which is a lot less than 47-million which is the new number quoted. State surveys have also confirmed that a very significant percentage of those eligible to receive government aid to be insured, simply do not sign up.

Michael Tanner has testified before Federal and state congresses for years and I think he has done the best job out there of explaining why the 42, 47, 50-million uninsured figures are not truly representative. A goodly portion of the uninsured are 18-24; we know this from surveys. I was uninsured during those years...I didn't care. I wanted beer and KZ650s which is exactly what I bought.

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

Matclone posted a link to a study by the CDC that said 42 million (the CDC doesn't count as the drive by media do they?) and you said that the number should be more like 9 million but didn't provide a source.

I'm not saying who's right and who isn't, but from reading this thread the 42 million seems to be the better supported number.

matclone · 05-13-2008, 04:47 PM

Flogging Sully asked you to back up your claims with something, and you basically just repeat what you said before. But maybe you dont' have your sources at hand. The, "they will be insured in 4 mos" argument is misleading. In the meantime, someone else will be uninsured. The "they chose not to be insured, or didn't apply for benefits" argument is misleading because even 18-24 year olds can have an accident at any time. These sound like the sorts of arguments I would expect to hear from, say, the Heritage Foundation. A sound survey will take a snapshot picture, which I assume the cdc did. I've been hearing basically the same numbers for about 15 years and never, ever have I heard of the uninsured figure being below 10%. Also, 42 million is a national figure, not a state figure. State surveys would be only relevant to that state.

r.payton@att.net · 05-13-2008, 05:08 PM

We have somewhere close to 2 million people either in prison or some aspect of the legal sysstem -the revolving door policy currently in place will ensure the numbers only escalate .
From the work I 've done in prison the single common denominator among all inmates is a single parent home . No father ,no community ,no hope . I can't say i am mad at these young guys either , I was raised dirt poor w/out a father and making more in an hour on a corner than a month at McDonald's is too tempting to pass up -and once the first felony is in place you are pretty much doomed to recetivism .sp.

At least in Indiana , if you have any type of drug conviction you are ineligable for food stamps , public housing , etc.....forever.

Cyclone85 · 05-13-2008, 05:31 PM

Look -- we've studied this. There are problems with these high figures. The number of chronically uninsured people (those w/o coverage for more than 2-years) is much lower than the figures being reported. Drive-by wants us to believe there are 47-million people that have never had coverage, can't afford coverage, and will never be able to get coverage. None of this is true. Also, there are problems with the U.S. Census Bureau and CDC figures. For example, we know from studies that if you ask a person (that is on Medicaid) the question, 'are you uninsured', they will answer yes. But they are insured. The same is true for many oldsters. If you ask someone that has Medicare w/o a Medicare supplement policy the same question, they will answer the same way, 'yes' -- I am uninsured. But they are insured.

Also -- I said multi-state which covered a large cross-section of the U.S. The straight 47-million figure is misleading....

Finally -- I am not suggesting we don't have a problem here. We do but it can be fixed without a giant Federal Bureau of Health Insurance that rations health care expenditures and jams your paycheck with a 15% additional payroll tax.

Originally Posted by matclone

Flogging Sully asked you to back up your claims with something, and you basically just repeat what you said before. But maybe you dont' have your sources at hand. The, "they will be insured in 4 mos" argument is misleading. In the meantime, someone else will be uninsured. The "they chose not to be insured, or didn't apply for benefits" argument is misleading because even 18-24 year olds can have an accident at any time. These sound like the sorts of arguments I would expect to hear from, say, the Heritage Foundation. A sound survey will take a snapshot picture, which I assume the cdc did. I've been hearing basically the same numbers for about 15 years and never, ever have I heard of the uninsured figure being below 10%. Also, 42 million is a national figure, not a state figure. State surveys would be only relevant to that state.

skipster · 05-13-2008, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by sgallan

I don't agree with your 'negatives'. People get locked up because some of them murder, some steal, some molest, and some deal drugs. I don't agree that we 'throw away the key'. In fact, the exact opposite is true. We have some pretty liberal sentencing laws when people who commit 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, etc. can get out in less than 12-years. A goodly number of the criminals let out strike again which verifies the lean sentences we have.

I also don't agree that we are a 'harsh and brutish' nation with regard to minorities and those without.

That is all very nice spin. Given that nice spin...... why do you think we have the highest incarceration rate in the world..... by far?

We have a high incarceration rate because a lot of people think that they can have children without having to raise them and be responsible parents. This leads to the crime we see by predominantly fatherless people who have had no one to teach them how to decently act. The fathers have implicitly said that they want someone else to discipline their kids, since they didn't want to do it, and they have looked to the government for help, by way of incarceration.

Our laws are no secret and there is no secret to staying out of jail. Those who are in jail are there because of their own behavior. If you don't like incarcerating those who violate others' rights, perhaps you won't hold any ill will to anyone if they should happen to violate your rights. But, you've already told us that you advocate lower incarceration for everyone excpet those who violate your rights.

matclone · 05-13-2008, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

Look -- we've studied this.

Who has?

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

There are problems with these high figures. The number of chronically uninsured people (those w/o coverage for more than 2-years) is much lower than the figures being reported. Drive-by wants us to believe there are 47-million people that have never had coverage, can't afford coverage, and will never be able to get coverage.

It's not hard to find problems with numbers but your arguments are again misleading. When people say 14% (42/300m) are uninsured, it's a snapshot figure and it's typically used to show the magnitude of the problem. You introduce new criteria (the chronically uninsured/never able to get coverage) that are not imagined by such figures, presumably in order to divert our attention from the fact that there are a great number of uninsured people as well as a lot of other problems with our healthcare system.

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

None of this is true. Also, there are problems with the U.S. Census Bureau and CDC figures.

I basically trust the Census Bureau and the CDC, and you've given me no reason not to.

Originally Posted by Cyclone85

Finally -- I am not suggesting we don't have a problem here. We do but it can be fixed without a giant Federal Bureau of Health Insurance that rations health care expenditures and jams your paycheck with a 15% additional payroll tax.

Ah, the hypothetical problem appears, undoubtedly driven by an ideological opposition to government involvement in such matters.

National health care opponents are dishonest to talk about (hypothetical) rationing without acknowledging the fact that we face (real) rationing of healthcare today from the private sector.

Cyclone85 · 05-13-2008, 08:56 PM

Who has? Every state and the consultants hired by every state. Every insurance department of every state, and every public health department of every state. I do not trust the CDC nor the Census Bureau for reasons that go beyond the scope of this thread. I barely trust the states anymore. While not my bailiwick, I am involved to a certain degree on very similar matters. I have testified @ hearings numerous times as an expert witness as well as being a member of nationally recognized committees and subcommittees that provide data and recommendations to legislatures; Scout's Honor -- Gospel.

I will simply say (again) that 42-million (or 47 or 50 or whatever it is next week) is misleading. If you measured it in months exposed or life-years exposed to being uninsured, it is significantly less than 42-million life-years. Again, if you're 25-years old and invincible, and you don't purchase -- I can't help. If you're a family of 4 making $85k and you don't purchase it (but can afford it), I can't help you. If you're eligible for subsidy, and don't sign up -- I can't help you. These numbers are not insignificant. It also baffles me that you completely discount the people that regain coverage in a short few months.

Finally, if you're suggesting that rationing is taking place in the private market, you're right. You can thank the people and state legislatures for the HMO era and managed care; that's what everybody wanted at the time as a way to reduce the frequency and severity of claims. It worked for awhile, however, the legislatures like to mandate new coverages every year. It couldn't be for votes or anything like that. NO!! Wait, now I remember -- every sob story becomes law now. Every state has numerous state mandated benefits, from chiro coverage, optometry, mental health and substance abuse, eating disorders, .... , clear down to hearing aids for kids. Some states have as few as 15 whilst others have over 40! This greatly adds to the cost of insurance. I believe AHIP or CATO has a matrix of states and their mandated benefits.

But don't forget -- there is rationing in Medicaid, Medicare, and any other form of government health care; only more.

This is really boring man. Kind of a drag.....

Originally Posted by matclone

Who has?

It's not hard to find problems with numbers but your arguments are again misleading. When people say 14% (42/300m) are uninsured, it's a snapshot figure and it's typically used to show the magnitude of the problem. You introduce new criteria (the chronically uninsured/never able to get coverage) that are not imagined by such figures, presumably in order to divert our attention from the fact that there are a great number of uninsured people as well as a lot of other problems with our healthcare system.

I basically trust the Census Bureau and the CDC, and you've given me no reason not to.

Ah, the hypothetical problem appears, undoubtedly driven by an ideological opposition to government involvement in such matters.

National health care opponents are dishonest to talk about (hypothetical) rationing without acknowledging the fact that we face (real) rationing of healthcare today from the private sector.

America's still the best

Politics & Religion