Quote:
Originally Posted by dude1394
Is infant mortality more attributable to premature babies (i.e. teens) than any medicine?
|
imo it reflects the care provided to the mother prior to the birth, and to the care provided to the infant upon birth.
a lower rate of survival than our peers indicates a failure in adequate delivery (no pun intended...) of services. that's what the reform discussion is truly about, how to best deliver the healthcare.
there is no reason to tear down our healthcare system, it has the best to offer for those who can access it, and at the same time it has some of the highest costs to those who access it. our medical community has some of the best providors out there doing great work.
but at the same time we can do better, there's no reason to just rest on our laurels and not adapt to a changing world.
Quote:
If they aren't honeslty addressing costs, then they are playing a shell game. And the cbo says they are playing a big-time-shell-game. Which I expect they are in their religiouis zeal to get universal care.
I don't really have much of a problem with universal care really, but the debate we are having now is chock full of bull**** on the dems side. You can say bs from the conservative side also, but they are doing the bill and it's full of it.
|
the problem is that costs are increasing greater than the basket of costs as a whole (cpi), and those costs could rise even greater as the technology that is improving healthcare costs more and more to purchase.
it is wrong to look at the costs of reform without also looking at the projected costs of keeping things the same. there is without a doubt additional costs no matter which way we as a country proceed to deal with the issue.