Tell Me Something

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

[url].

Granted there are a lot of reasons for infant mortality, hence it's use as a general measurement.

-spence

which is why your statement was absurd....even...pathetic

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

which is why your statement was absurd....even...pathetic

No, many experts in the matter believe it's a reasonable measure when used properly. That's why they measure it.

You probably just think it's a statistic derived so that poor nations can suck the blood of the USA.

-spence

[TommyTuna]

ugh

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2091rank.html

It's about double the best countries. The percentage seems small but when you think about some 4 million born in the US every year, that translates roughly into 15,000 more deaths compared to the best.

Granted there are a lot of reasons for infant mortality, hence it's use as a general measurement.

-spence

The CIA infant mortality rate stats are interesting. 12 of the countries with lower IMF rates than U.S. have populations less than one million--some as low as 14 or 15 thousand which, as you say, is our total yearly infant death rate. They may not even have 1000 births per year which is the rate number used for IMR. Other than Japan, the other "better" countries have populations ranging in the low to double digit millions. We compare VERY, VERY favorably with populations over 100 million, with the exception of Japan which is an ethnically and culturally homogenous society lacking our demographic problems and blessed with a healthy life style and diet. The U.S. IMR stats seem to have gone down from the 7 per 1000 to 6.26/1000 and sit just above Cuba which is supposed to be a model of socialist health care.

As you say, there are a lot of reasons for infant mortality. The rates, however, can be skewed by how they are reported by individual countries. Many countries report relatively few infants as having died during the first 24 hours. This number is over one third of all infant deaths in the US, Australia, and Canada, but only about one fourth of totals in Japan and Sweden, it's less than one sixth of total in France, and only 1 twenty fifth of total in Hong Kong! Figures so low for some countries as to be suspect.

In Cuba and many European countries, births of less than 1000 grams are not counted toward mortality stats. In Switzerland, babies born less than 30 cm long are not counted as live births, and babies weighing less than 2.2 pounds and die after birth are counted as still births so do not affect the IMR. In Japan and Hong Kong babies born alive but die within the first 24 hours are reported as miscarriages so do not affect the IMR.

The Canadian Medical Assoc. Journal for Sept. 5, 2000 reports that "international comparisons of infant mortality are compromised by a lack of standardization with regard to birth registration practices. Studies have documented wide variation in the rate at which extemely small babies at the borderline of variability (e.g. 550g) are registered in different countries. As a potential solution the WHO has recommended that international comparisons of infant mortality be restricted to live births in which the newborn weighs 1000g or more. such a restriction would eliminate a substantial proportion of neonatal deaths from the infant mortality counts of most industrialized countries, however. This and other challenges inherent in birth-wieght-specific comparisons mean that international infant mortality rankings will continue to be based on crude rates and still favor industrialized countries which tend NOT TO REGISTER EXTREMELY SMALL LIVE BIRTHS"

Dr. Linda Halderman states that low birth weight infants (less than 1000g) are not counted against the "live birth" statistics for many countries reporting low IMR. When weight at birth is factored in, Norway has no better survival rates than the US. Survival rates for high risk low weight babies is higher in the US than in Norway and Japan because we do so much more to save them. In Belgium and France any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and doesn't count against the IMR.

Uniform reporting would move the U.S. up from the bottom third to about the middle of the OECD group. Our unique problems of life and health style, lack of homogenous cultural ethnicity, high crime rates, high teen pregnancy rates, racial diversity, massive illegal immigration problems, etc., would probably keep us from being the best, no matter what health care bill is passed. Maybe, if we swore off of red meat, ate tofu and rice, stayed close to home and all thought the same way, etc., we would be #1.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As you say, there are a lot of reasons for infant mortality. The rates, however, can be skewed by how they are reported by individual countries.

The thing to keep in mind is that the stat is used as a general measure of health, not a ranking of the quality of care.

You can have great health insurance, but not get prenatal care and as a result have a bad result. (As an example, I know someone who nearly had a tragic ending to a really stupid home birth.).

The question I pose is, for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy?

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As you say, there are a lot of reasons for infant mortality. The rates, however, can be skewed by how they are reported by individual countries.

I agree, the thing to keep in mind is that the stat is used as a general measure of health, not a ranking of the quality of care.

You can have great health insurance, but not get prenatal care and as a result have a bad result. (As an example, I know someone who nearly had a tragic ending to a really stupid home birth. The story is incredible...and stupid)

What I ask, is for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy as a group?

-spence

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

I

What I ask, is for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy as a group?

-spence

Candy, Chips, Cookies, over eating, Soda, Sugar, Smoking, Drugs, booze, computer games, etc:

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Candy, Chips, Cookies, over eating, Soda, Sugar, Smoking, Drugs, booze, computer games, etc:

So why spend so much? It would seem like most of this is under our personal control.

-spence

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

It would seem like most of this is under our personal control.

-spence

And it should be, we are a free people and can make our own choices, good or bad.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I agree, the thing to keep in mind is that the stat is used as a general measure of health, not a ranking of the quality of care.

You can have great health insurance, but not get prenatal care and as a result have a bad result. (As an example, I know someone who nearly had a tragic ending to a really stupid home birth. The story is incredible...and stupid)

What I ask, is for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy as a group?

-spence

Spence, I apologize for not being able to finish my post before you responded to it. One of those time glitches that I run into in writing lengthy stuff and the system cuts me off. I have gone back and "edited"--that is added the rest of what I wished to say, which may, in part, be a sketchy answer to your question.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

So why spend so much? It would seem like most of this is under our personal control.

-spence

Personal control= a 5' 6" person weighs in at 250lbs. goes to one of them burger joints takes in 3,000 calories, farts and loses 500 calories. That is personal control.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So why spend so much? It would seem like most of this is under our personal control.

-spence

Exactly, personal responsibility rather than government prodding is the answer. Similar to "education" in this country. We spend more than anybody and get relatively little in return compared to other countries. Yet we keep saying that the results just indicate that we haven't "invested" enough. Those who are motivated to learn or to be healthy have a better shot at it than those who wait for help. Of course there are exceptions, but not so that we must redo our entire way of paying for health care. That's why we have funny little sayings such as "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Exactly, personal responsibility rather than government prodding is the answer. Similar to "education" in this country. We spend more than anybody and get relatively little in return compared to other countries. Yet we keep saying that the results just indicate that we haven't "invested" enough. Those who are motivated to learn or to be healthy have a better shot at it than those who wait for help. Of course there are exceptions, but not so that we must redo our entire way of paying for health care. That's why we have funny little sayings such as "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater."

Personally I think it's because our lifestyle is so good people simply don't care.

I'm all for health based incentives by the way. It's idiotic that my company won't bother to sponsor 25 dollars a month for a gym membership but they'll contribute 12K towards a health plan that's really lacking in many ways.

The problem isn't investment...the entire system is dysfunctional.

-spence

[Fly Rod]

You want your company to pay for you to go to the gym. Do you go to a gym now?

For the twelve grand that the company pays towards my health care I get more then my monies worth. I wish they would pick up my 20.00 dollar co-pay I could go get one of them juicy burgers.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

You want your company to pay for you to go to the gym. Do you go to a gym now?

For the twelve grand that the company pays towards my health care I get more then my monies worth. I wish they would pick up my 20.00 dollar co-pay I could go get one of them juicy burgers.

I want my HMO to pay for my gym membership - with proof of activity. It's a dual incentive. I get healthier, feel better and save some money. The insurance company pays less because I'm healthier and at an extremely reduced risk due to activity.

I have always been an advocate that the morbidly obese, smokers, proven alcoholics with liver cirrhosis, heroin users with Hep or HIV similarly self-inflicted health issues should *not* be covered by insurance.

No different than being sent to the hospital for alcohol poisoning for drinking too much - which would not be covered by my insurance.

[Fly Rod]

You just want to watch them young ladies sweat.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

You just want to watch them young ladies sweat.

Half the reason I sometimes go to the gym "just to do some Cardio".



...alright, maybe more than half.

[scottw]

waaaa.....I want someone else to pay for my healthclub membership...are you kidding me? will this also be included in free universal healthcare?

"What I ask, is for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy as a group?"
-spence

this is nonsensical....spending more on healthcare should make us more healthy as a group? noooooo....lifestyle choices, genetics and environment affect the overall healthiness of a group but not spending on healthcare...it's expensive because it is advanced and it is good and you can try but you can't nanny state legislate whether or not an individual is going to be a unhealthy or not....you can pay for the best health insurance/ healthcare in the world and he'll still be unhealthy, Ted Kennedy...what are you going to do tax him, force him into a government mandated exercise program, with a government mandated diet monitored by government fat agents? actually, it wouldn't surprise me....

It's idiotic that my company won't bother to sponsor 25 dollars a month for a gym membership

it's idiotic for you to expect someone else to pick up the tab...

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

waaaa.....I want someone else to pay for my healthclub membership...are you kidding me? will this also be included in free universal healthcare?

Actually, many company plans offer this as an incentive to change your lifestyle. If private companies are offering perks like that, then it must make some business sense......

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Actually, many company plans offer this as an incentive to change your lifestyle. If private companies are offering perks like that, then it must make some business sense......

It's been proven that companies that promote health lifestyles have lower health care costs and higher productivity in the office.

With all the money companies hemorrhage on training, professional development and other programs that are often an excuse to get out of the office, what's $25 for the health of the employees? I pay more than that just for my guys to take lunch on a professional development day.

[Raider Ronnie]

If or when they shove this joke of a health care plan down our throats
will every elected official have the same ins plan ???

[scottw]

what's $25 out of your pocket to improve your own health? how about being responsible for yourself rather than looking of a gimme...

Spence asked...

"What I ask, is for how much we spend, why aren't we more healthy as a group?"-spence

healthy people/populations don't need and/or use the healthcare system as frequently and therefore spend LESS

the exception would be a population enjoying free government healthcare like Japan where they take full advantage of the entitlement to it's detrement

higher spending on healthcare does not translate keeping healthy people healthy....that's up to them, unless you plan to force everyone to live a healthy lifestyle.."for the good of the State"

Actually, many company plans offer this as an incentive to change your lifestyle.

this is fine Rock, it's optional but we now have statesattacking through taxation products and activities that they "the State" deem unhealthy, it's just the beginning to government telling you what you may and may not do regarding your health...especially if they are providing your healthcare services...

Obama stated that most of healthcare spending is near the end of life..this is certainly not spending on healthy people to keep people "healthy", it's spending for procedures necessary to keep them going as their bodies break down....in some cases due to some degree of unhealthy living but ...they're old....

"What I ask, is for how much we spend, why aren't "those old people" more healthy as a group?"

"What I ask, is for how much we spend on education, [B]why aren't we more educated as a group?"

"What I ask, is for how much we spend entitlements, ........

note that as soon as you guys start down this road to socialized healthcare to any degree you immediately start to dictate what others should be doing regarding lifestyle...really? a free gym membership is the solution to a healthier America? you can't be healthy and exercise unless someone gives you a free gym membership???? Are you going to wheel the unwilling into a gym and beat them till they exercise or just fine and jail them???

I think we are defining WE differently these days........

[spence]

I'd note that even when you resort to putting words in my mouth, you're still completely incoherent.

-spence

[scottw]

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;714401]It's been proven that companies that promote health lifestyles have lower health care costs and higher productivity in the office.


really??? are the companies somehow paying for the healthcare?

they might negotiate lower health insurance premiums if they can prove that their employees are somehow healthier than the norm or the average...hmmm...that will require some monitoring...


The “employer’s share” of employees’ health-care costs comes out of those employees’ wages, not out of profits. Employers aren’t forcing their employees to pick up a larger share of the bill because they can’t. Workers are already paying the entire bill. Regardless...YOU are paying for your health insurance ultimately unless you are getting some kind of goverment entitlement....

where exactly is this proven again?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I'd note that even when you resort to putting words in my mouth, you're still completely incoherent.

-spence

I understand Spence..these are tough concepts for a Communist

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

The “employer’s share” of employees’ health-care costs comes out of those employees’ wages, not out of profits. Employers aren’t forcing their employees to pick up a larger share of the bill because they can’t. Workers are already paying the entire bill. Regardless...YOU are paying for your health insurance ultimately unless you are getting some kind of goverment entitlement....

This simply isn't true in a large number of cases. Most large companies underwright their employees insurance and simply pay the "insurance company" to administrate.

If employees are more healthy this will naturally reduce the number of claims which contributes directly to bottom line savings. If a company has less "loss" they can return more "profit" to the shareholders...

This may not be applicable to small businesses who buy insurance directly, but it impacts a large share of the insured regardless.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

this is fine Rock, it's optional but we now have statesattacking through taxation products and activities that they "the State" deem unhealthy, it's just the beginning to government telling you what you may and may not do regarding your health...especially if they are providing your healthcare services...

Good.
tax cig's cigars etc 10.00 a pack. more revenue. the state doesn't deem something like that unsafe, the medical profession does.
tax fast food 1.00/order, less obesity maybe?
Maybe drop smokers from insurance? I know many Police and Fire departments are already doing that, and many companies are 'encouraging' people to quit, why? because then people are healthier and costs are LOWER to the companies.

What else does the state attack through taxation? Please be specific that you think is healthy and they think unhealthy.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This simply isn't true in a large number of cases. Most large companies underwright their employees insurance and simply pay the "insurance company" to administrate.

If employees are more healthy this will naturally reduce the number of claims which contributes directly to bottom line savings. If a company has less "loss" they can return more "profit" to the shareholders...

This may not be applicable to small businesses who buy insurance directly, but it impacts a large share of the insured regardless.

-spence

companies that promote health lifestyles have lower health care costs JD

companies do not pay for health care, they do not have health care costs...they forward your health insurance premium to a health insurance company who ultimately pays for your health care services less any deductibles...this is the problem, Obama uses health care and health insurance interchangeably just as he does principles and values....because he believes that they should be one in the same and dictated by and directed through the state....

What else does the state attack through taxation? Please be specific that you think is healthy and they think unhealthy.

it doesn't matter what I think is healthy and unhealthy...it's none of my business what someone else eats....read the news, in NY taxing soda, trans-fats anything that they may deem unhealthy...none of their f-ing business...nor yours....is this really the road that you want to go down Rock??? drop smokers from insurance and then maybe deny them treatment because they smoked??? what does "encouraging" mean.....it all just fine till someone decides that they don't like what "YOU" are doing and decide to tax it or "encourage" you to stop

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

This simply isn't true in a large number of cases. Most large companies underwright their employees insurance and simply pay the "insurance company" to administrate.

-spence

you are referring to a small # of ASO's...hardly the norm..

Typically, only large employers choose to self insure their employee health plans.

The employees of a self insured employer often do not understand that the employer has a self insured plan. The employees are issued an “insurance” card with the name of a health insurance company on it, such as “Blue Cross & Blue Shield” or “UnitedHealthcare”, but the insurance company is only acting as an administrator, not an insurer.

Avoidance of state insurance regulation is one reason for the increase in self insured plans. Since self insured plans does not involve a traditional insurance arrangement between an employer and an insurance company, self insured plans are exempted from many types of state insurance regulations by the federal ERISA statute. For example, state law coverage mandates (e.g., a state law that requires that certain health benefits be covered by insurance contracts, such as fertility treatments) do not apply to self insured plans. In addition, self insured plans can avoid other costs built into traditional health insurance premiums, such as state premium taxes, contributions to the state high-risk insurance pools (if any), and contributions to a health insurance company’s profits and reserves.

Employers that self insure, however, typically do no bear all the risk of a self insured plan. Instead, self insured employers usually buy traditional insurance to cover the risk of very high losses due to large or unexpected health claims by their employees. This insurance is called “stop loss insurance.” Although this insurance covers the health care claims of the employees, it is not considered health insurance because is does not cover health care claims directly. Instead, it protects the employer against large losses it might suffer as a result of being self insured.

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

you are referring to a small # of ASO's...hardly the norm..

Typically, only large employers choose to self insure their employee health plans.

Again, this simply isn't true. The ASO market is huge and has been rapidly spreading to small and medium size businesses.

The employees of a self insured employer often do not understand that the employer has a self insured plan. The employees are issued an “insurance” card with the name of a health insurance company on it, such as “Blue Cross & Blue Shield” or “UnitedHealthcare”, but the insurance company is only acting as an administrator, not an insurer.

Yes, because their employer has underwritten the insurance.

Avoidance of state insurance regulation is one reason for the increase in self insured plans. Since self insured plans does not involve a traditional insurance arrangement between an employer and an insurance company, self insured plans are exempted from many types of state insurance regulations by the federal ERISA statute. For example, state law coverage mandates (e.g., a state law that requires that certain health benefits be covered by insurance contracts, such as fertility treatments) do not apply to self insured plans. In addition, self insured plans can avoid other costs built into traditional health insurance premiums, such as state premium taxes, contributions to the state high-risk insurance pools (if any), and contributions to a health insurance company’s profits and reserves.

Huh?

Employers that self insure, however, typically do no bear all the risk of a self insured plan. Instead, self insured employers usually buy traditional insurance to cover the risk of very high losses due to large or unexpected health claims by their employees. This insurance is called “stop loss insurance.” Although this insurance covers the health care claims of the employees, it is not considered health insurance because is does not cover health care claims directly. Instead, it protects the employer against large losses it might suffer as a result of being self insured.

So? It's called risk management. Happens all the time.

You seem to be having a particularly incoherent day today, and considering how low the bar is usually set, this is disturbing.

-spence