On 4/30/2026 11:31 AM, Paul S Person wrote:Well, somebody's position, anyway. Mine here was just that the stats
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 22:05:34 -0700, Robert Woodward
<robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
In article <10stmmk$5jhk$1@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/28/2026 9:19 PM, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:25:19 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
The definitions for those two terms, life expectancy and infant
mortality, are not the same inside the USA and outside the USA. Be >>>>>> careful using those stats.
Is there some different way of defining rCLdeathrC??
Lynn is giving the usual conservative talking point when
the disparities are pointed out.
The life expectancy number can't really be explained away,
but with infant mortality, you can claim there are differences
over what constitutes in 'infant'.
However, I was using the under-five mortality rate, compiled
by the World Bank, so that ambiguity does not apply.
Are they counting only infants that drew breath when born? Because, it
is my impression (and perhaps Lynn's as well) that the USA definition of >>> infant mortality includes full term pregnancies that ended up with a
dead infant at birth.
As the man said, "with infant mortality, you can claim there are
differences over what constitutes in 'infant'".
Thank you for illustrating the point.
This appears to be a /comparison/ of rates all using the /same
definition/. It really doesn't matter what the definition is; the US
is worse off than other countries.
So, what else is new?
No, still births aren't counted. I was mentioning a hypothetical, which
I have now investigated.
"Infant mortality refers to the death of a live-born baby before
reaching 1 year of age.
To be counted, the baby must show any sign of life after delivery >(breathing, heartbeat, voluntary movement)."
Don't assume something you don't know actually favors your
position.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:What makes you think I am exaggerating?
On Fri, 01 May 2026 00:35:09 +0100, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-04-27, Paul S Person wrote:
More recently, the State cracked
down on excessive use of the Emergency Room by Medicaid patients to
get a primary care physician instead.
Did they at least ensure such primary care medics were available, or
that there were primary care facilities with similar or at least
extended opening hours?
<snip>
Note that we are talking about people who were in the Emergency Room
for every sniffle, every cough, every "owie", and, if not every day, >>certainly a whole lot of days every month
Exaggeration doesn't help your case.
<snip>
Scott Lurndal wrote:This was, I presume, in an emergency room in Washington State some
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Fri, 01 May 2026 00:35:09 +0100, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-04-27, Paul S Person wrote:
More recently, the State cracked
down on excessive use of the Emergency Room by Medicaid patients to
get a primary care physician instead.
Did they at least ensure such primary care medics were available, or
that there were primary care facilities with similar or at least
extended opening hours?
<snip>
Note that we are talking about people who were in the Emergency Room
for every sniffle, every cough, every "owie", and, if not every day,
certainly a whole lot of days every month
Exaggeration doesn't help your case.
Correct.
Recently I've spent about 150 hours in the ER (ambulatory treatment, so
no crash victims, etc) of late and saw nobody who fit the above description.
Well, there was one guy who was fine. But through some snafu he'd just
been informed that he had to get flight clearance, right away, or he >couldn't do his job.
He had a blood test and 10 minutes with a doctor, got his papers signed
and was gone.
Otherwise it was a parade of infants with disturbing symptoms, people >finding out for the first time that they had diabetes (very bad
diabetes), heart attack, arrhythmia, mild stroke, injury, and so on.
Last fall I was the only patient there, until they brought in some guy
who was accompanied by a pair of officers. That, however, was at five
AM on a weeknight.
On 2026-05-01, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Fri, 01 May 2026 00:35:09 +0100, Nuno Silva >>><nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 2026-04-27, Paul S Person wrote:
More recently, the State cracked
down on excessive use of the Emergency Room by Medicaid patients to
get a primary care physician instead.
Did they at least ensure such primary care medics were available, or >>>>that there were primary care facilities with similar or at least >>>>extended opening hours?
<snip>
Note that we are talking about people who were in the Emergency Room
for every sniffle, every cough, every "owie", and, if not every day, >>>certainly a whole lot of days every month
Exaggeration doesn't help your case.
<snip>
The point still stands that primary care must be easily available before
any idea of blaming or shaming people for going to the ER for that.
Ideally, if this costs more, it'd be an incentive to fund more primary
care. Sadly, this is easily not done: both underfund primary care and >publicly shame people for going to an ER when they don't have any other >alternative.
Oh, great point. I had forgotten (or maybe never made) the ACA
connection. That's surely a big factor.
Honestly, the country that limits medical treatment is the USA. And I
don't mean ICE refusing medical assistance to Ren|-e Good, or brutally >murdering a nurse, I mean that this high barrier to access in inflated
costs and needless bureaucracy and the constant need for additional >programmes to ensure some degree of acess instead of just getting rid of >health insurance actually results in people being left out.
Needless to say, I'm a diabetic who now finds my insurance will
cover the original cost but NOT the inflated cost with the result
that the tripling of the cost is on me.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 10:29:15 +0100, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Honestly, the country that limits medical treatment is the USA. And I
don't mean ICE refusing medical assistance to Ren|a--e Good, or brutally
murdering a nurse, I mean that this high barrier to access in inflated
costs and needless bureaucracy and the constant need for additional
programmes to ensure some degree of acess instead of just getting rid of
health insurance actually results in people being left out.
One thing that just makes me postal is how hosts like Oprah and her
friends have promoted drugs like Ozempic (which started as a diabetes
drug) and thanks to Oprah and others became a preferred drug for rich
folks who use it as a diet drug with the resultant tripling in price.
Needless to say, I'm a diabetic who now finds my insurance will cover
the original cost but NOT the inflated cost with the result that the
tripling of the cost is on me.
To me that's completely obscene - particularly since I'm now retired
and am facing the choice between giving up something else or giving up something that was actually doing me some good.
So no - Oprah is NOT on my Christmas Card list.
On 5/7/2026 12:41 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 10:29:15 +0100, Nuno Silva
<nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Honestly, the country that limits medical treatment is the USA. And I
don't mean ICE refusing medical assistance to Ren|a--e Good, or brutally >>> murdering a nurse, I mean that this high barrier to access in inflated
costs and needless bureaucracy and the constant need for additional
programmes to ensure some degree of acess instead of just getting rid of >>> health insurance actually results in people being left out.
One thing that just makes me postal is how hosts like Oprah and her
friends have promoted drugs like Ozempic (which started as a diabetes
drug) and thanks to Oprah and others became a preferred drug for rich
folks who use it as a diet drug with the resultant tripling in price.
Needless to say, I'm a diabetic who now finds my insurance will cover
the original cost but NOT the inflated cost with the result that the
tripling of the cost is on me.
To me that's completely obscene - particularly since I'm now retired
and am facing the choice between giving up something else or giving up
something that was actually doing me some good.
So no - Oprah is NOT on my Christmas Card list.
Wait, aren't you in Canada, the land of FREE health care ???
Too true. In my career as a nurse I frequently saw people
who had avoided dealing with the reality of their situation and many
who through age related decline were incapable of dealing with the
the reality of their situations.
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 16:27:36 -0500, Lynn McGuire wrote:
Why do so many Canadians come to the USA for healthcare then ?
My Canadian customers complain bitterly about Canadian healthcare.
Several of them have private health insurance that is good for
private healthcare in Canada and in the USA.
Interesting that their Canadian health insurance actually works,
compared to American health insurance ...
I got my cataracts replaced last year on Medicare.
Tell me again that USA health insurance does not work.
I was able to return to work the next day after each of my cataract >surgeries. (One for each eye.)
I went in early this year to get the nodules in my lungs checked out
again using their MRI machine on low dose. No growth and still 5 mm in >diameter for all five nodules. I did not pay a penny for the test using
my Medicare and supplemental insurance, I pay about $400/month for the >health insurance. I go back again in 2027.
Immediate death, death within 30 days of delivery, death within 90 days
of delivery, etc are handled differently by states and countries for
infant mortality.
Some places also define death of a fetus after a certain number of weeks
as infant mortality.
You learn a lot of things when you lose a baby during what was a normal >delivery. There is no such thing as a normal delivery.
In my experience the insurance companies sent you many bills for things
that are covered.
For example, after a copay of 125, I received a bill for 750 for a short >stay at Duke hospital. A friend was in a bit longer and billed 4500.
Best is to simply ignore them, as they are either incompetent or are
hoping you'll simply pay. After the second notice they either figure
out that they are owed nothing, or that you are not a sucker.
Incompetence or a scam, take your pick. Or both!
Observing and reporting people being treated
differently based on skin color is not.
Referring to one invisible person(hood) by a
skin color, and another invisible person(hood)
by another skin color is treating those invisible
person(hood)s differently.
On Wed, 29 Apr 2026 16:53:49 -0400, William Hyde
<wthyde1953@gmail.com> wrote:
In my experience the insurance companies sent you many bills for things
that are covered.
For example, after a copay of 125, I received a bill for 750 for a short
stay at Duke hospital. A friend was in a bit longer and billed 4500.
Best is to simply ignore them, as they are either incompetent or are
hoping you'll simply pay. After the second notice they either figure
out that they are owed nothing, or that you are not a sucker.
Incompetence or a scam, take your pick. Or both!
Silly question but that sounds like a daily fee on your hospital room.
Is that part of your insurance plan?
On Tue, 28 Apr 2026 17:29:12 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
I was able to return to work the next day after each of my cataract
surgeries. (One for each eye.)
I was told not to start driving till the following Monday (both
surgeries were done on a Thursday)
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 06:42:26 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
921 files (14,318M bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,702 |