House Votes for Repeal of Health Law in Symbolic Act

[Aeson]

The descrepancy is probably because most US cancer patients are instead killed by handguns before teh cancer can get them.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Pretty amazing that even with all the uninsured we have in this country that you are still 10-20% more likely to survive cancer here than in England.

Why is that?

exactly as braindead said - who is counting the uninsured as "died" from cancer when they do not get the treatement at all in most cases... they simply "die", so it would be easy to say that what is being counted in teh US is the survival rate of the "insured" which is still excellent, and that is good... but this goes againt "everyone" in the countries with full coverage.

And one point off the scale - how come that US is bent over to comparing itself to UK - on many metrics - the worst social healthcare in the developed world, and not some others who are world class "social" healthcare, like French, Germany or Japan (not to mention some other smaller countries, but you could hold "size" against them like Sweden, Switzerland, Netherlands )

[OzzyKP]

I think that is a pretty bold assumption there. Do you have anything to back it up that the uninsured aren't included in that number?

And whichever country you wish to pick, from that chart it seems the US beats all of them.

[Egbert]

There was no bold assumption. There was a query as to how those statistics are compiled, particularly whether data is restricted to the insured. Without knowing how the statistics were gathered, in each country, those numbers can not be regarded as "hard" and their comparability is uncertain. (Without going near the subject of whether there are any controls to prevent "fudging" of the statistics). Perhaps broadly indicative with a significant margin for error but not terribly useful for anythink more than nationalistic dick-waving.

[giblets]

When health spending per capita is twice as high in the US as it is in Europe, getting good results shouldn't be a surprise...

[OzzyKP]

There was no bold assumption. There was a query as to how those statistics are compiled, particularly whether data is restricted to the insured. Without knowing how the statistics were gathered, in each country, those numbers can not be regarded as "hard" and their comparability is uncertain. (Without going near the subject of whether there are any controls to prevent "fudging" of the statistics). Perhaps broadly indicative with a significant margin for error but not terribly useful for anythink more than nationalistic dick-waving.

So then, I suppose, any numbers anyone throws out here aren't going to count for anything at all unless they document every detail about how the information was gathered?

Or do only stats from one side get called into question?

[Egbert]

So then, I suppose, any numbers anyone throws out here aren't going to count for anything at all unless they document every detail about how the information was gathered?

Or do only stats from one side get called into question?

I think one could say "these statistics indicate or suggest that ...". That would be quite different from saying "These statistics PROVE that ....".

Umh.
Of course, particularly in an internet debate, only the other sides stats, arguments, facts and so forth are called into question.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I think that is a pretty bold assumption there. Do you have anything to back it up that the uninsured aren't included in that number?

And whichever country you wish to pick, from that chart it seems the US beats all of them.

if you read my follow up post, which I assumed you read, it shows that 15% uninsured compromise only 4% of cancer deaths... thus unless you are uninsured and you automagically become more immune to cancer - it is a fair assumption that the overall numbers are not exactly counted right. If anything the incidence of cancer in the uninsured population should be higher than the "insured" one, because 25% of them do not even go to get the treatment, and those who manage are often late, and have a lot lower chances of survival.

While you could make some allowance that the uninsured group should have lower cancer incidence rates overall due to them being below 65yo (or whenever medicaid kicks in), I doubt it is about 4x less (or even lower in reality at all, given the above) as the stats would give you, so it is quite reasonable to assume that total cancer survival rates are overestimated in the US, as they mostly count insured population.

[Egbert]

onefoot

[DinoDoc]

A federal judge in Florida has struck down the Obama administration's requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance, and questioned the constitutionality of the entire health care law.

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate," wrote U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson, the second federal jurist to rule against law that Obama signed last year.

Two other judges have sided with the administration on the issue that may well win up in the Supreme Court.

Obama and his aides said the requirement that all Americans, known as the individual mandate, is essential to financing the plan -- and that is exactly the reason opponents of the health care law have targeted it in a series of federal lawsuits. The law requires nearly all Americans to have health insurance in 2014, or face fines.

Vinson, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, drew a case filed by GOP attorney generals within hours of the law's signing in March; eventually 26 states joined in the lawsuit.

U.S. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, praised the ruling, saying that "Congress does not have the legal authority to tell Utahns and other Americans that they must buy health insurance or else."

"The decision flies in the face of three other decisions, contradicts decades of legal precedent, and could jeopardize families' health care security," said Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA. "We are confident, as this and other cases are decided on appeal, that the Affordable Care Act will be upheld in its entirety."

The case -- which the government is now likely to appeal -- revolves around competing views of the federal government regulation of interstate commerce.

The states that sued argue that Congress and the federal government cannot force to engage in commerce; i.e., buy health insurance.

The federal government argue that it -- and taxpayers -- often pick up medical costs incurred by the uninsured, making health care a legitimate object of regulation.

When states first filed the suit, they asked Judge Vinson to block implementation of the health care law. Vinson refused.

link

Link to health care ruling

[dannubis]

I think that is a pretty bold assumption there. Do you have anything to back it up that the uninsured aren't included in that number?

And whichever country you wish to pick, from that chart it seems the US beats all of them.

Sorry to burst the bubble here but "cancer survival rate" rather implies treatment no ? How else would you determine this metric. So, this applies only to the insured as most uninsured are not receiving treatment.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

link

Link to health care ruling

Wake me up when Kennedy flips his coin to make a ruling.

That being said, interesting the reasonings given by Judge Vinson as quoted in Slate. Damn teabagger judges.

The money graf, in which Vinson strikes down the entire law -- which, because of the mess in the Senate and House, lacked severability:


Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

UPDATE: The decision is below, but here's more of Vinson's thinking.

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2011/01/31/florida-district-court-rules-against-health-care-reform.aspx

[giblets]

It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.

No one is being 'forced' to buy health insurance. You can choose to pay a fine instead.

[Hauldren Collider]

No one is being 'forced' to buy health insurance. You can choose to pay a fine instead.

The whole point of his ruling is that if it is not a tax, and the Obama administration has insisted this, then the federal government has overstepped its authority and is not allowed to place a fine on something that is not commerce. If they had said it was a tax when they pitched it on TV, he probably would have ruled it constitutional.

And while they argue it is a tax in court, both judges in the two trials have ruled that it's an unreasonable bait and switch.

[giblets]

So if they just called it by a different name it would be okay? Yeah, that really makes sense...