fate

So, if I look, I'll find no cases of governments refusing to pay for treatment? I'll find no cases of unreasonable delays? I'll find near-perfection?

Of course not.
But comparing the instance of where national health insurance won't pay for a service versus where a private insurance plan in the US refuses to pay ....... that would be a fair comparison. In the US, non-payment of insurance claims is standard procedure. Something like 25% of all claims are refused upon first receipt. In Canada 99.5% of bills are paid upon first receipt. (Its easier because every practitioner has only one place to submit request for payment. Fraud is easier to detect. And the administration is much much easier than where there are dozens of insurance companies to deal with...)
I'm only familiar with Canada, but usually when a service isn't covered, its because it isn't certified as an acceptable procedure or an acceptable remedy. meaning unproven. Which would mean that the doctor would have to get approval for use in a trial, which requires certain protocols.
On rare occasions there are controversies.
As for waiting for service... Its been established that in the US, demand for service is lower because a large percentage of people are not insured and cannot afford service. It will be interesting, when and if, the US ever has 100% insurance if there is a supply of medical services that meet the genuine demand and not just the demand of those who can afford to get treatment..

Ray

Here's a website with some good seemingly unbiased stats on abortions in the US. There are about 1 million per year and about 1% of those are after 20 weeks, or about 10,000 per year. Roughly 2/3rds are 8 weeks or earlier and 90% are 20 weeks or earlier

Guttmacher was also the source for the estimate of 1,035 abortions a year which are third trimester. After 24 weeks. Which is a tenth of 1%
Which puts this question ...
Fate

It's not about "rare cases" where the mother's life is in jeopardy, it's about cases where it's not

into perspective. if just over a 1,000 out of 1,000,000 are true late term abortions, and some subset of this is "of choice".
Its a very rarely made choice.
I'd rather they didn't make the choice Fate. I'd rather doctors had to justify their willingness to abort in these cases to a medical board to eliminate instance that weren't medically necessary.
But I wouldn't want a law that comprehensively eliminates the choice and penalizes the woman. Especially since the evidence suggests it is a very very rarely considered option.

danivon wrote:However, your new "revision" is also problematic - what do the genetic purity of Europeans have to do with the issue of religion coming in? Or abortion.

Unless they are remarkably exceptional as regards birth control, one might reasonably expect they are having fewer babies because they're having an abortion or two.

rickyp wrote:fate

So, if I look, I'll find no cases of governments refusing to pay for treatment? I'll find no cases of unreasonable delays? I'll find near-perfection?

Of course not.
But comparing the instance of where national health insurance won't pay for a service versus where a private insurance plan in the US refuses to pay ....... that would be a fair comparison. In the US, non-payment of insurance claims is standard procedure. Something like 25% of all claims are refused upon first receipt. In Canada 99.5% of bills are paid upon first receipt. (Its easier because every practitioner has only one place to submit request for payment. Fraud is easier to detect. And the administration is much much easier than where there are dozens of insurance companies to deal with...)
I'm only familiar with Canada, but usually when a service isn't covered, its because it isn't certified as an acceptable procedure or an acceptable remedy. meaning unproven. Which would mean that the doctor would have to get approval for use in a trial, which requires certain protocols.
On rare occasions there are controversies.
As for waiting for service... Its been established that in the US, demand for service is lower because a large percentage of people are not insured and cannot afford service. It will be interesting, when and if, the US ever has 100% insurance if there is a supply of medical services that meet the genuine demand and not just the demand of those who can afford to get treatment..

Look, comrade, you can extol the virtues of socialized medicine all you want. We've been down this road before--Canadians who have to come to the US for treatment, etc. Tell us of all the greatness of government all you want. I'll pass.

http://www.prb.org/Publications/Article ... tives.aspx


Fate

Unless they are remarkably exceptional as regards birth control

I'm sure you'll parse the meaning of "remarkably exceptional" But the facts are knowable and known...

The vast majority of European women of childbearing age use contraception — and Europeans are more likely than Americans to be practicing birth control. In most European countries, more than four out of five women of childbearing age who were married or in a marriage-like relationship were using a contraceptive method at the time of the survey. The use rates ranged from 92 percent in Hungary in 1993, to 66 percent in Lithuania in 1995 (see Table 1). A 1995 survey in the United States showed that three-quarters (75 percent) of currently married American women ages 15 to 44 were using a contraceptive method; 69 percent of formerly married American women were using a method.

rickyp wrote:http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2001/MostEuropeanWomenUseContraceptives.aspx


Fate

Unless they are remarkably exceptional as regards birth control

I'm sure you'll parse the meaning of "remarkably exceptional" But the facts are knowable and known...

The vast majority of European women of childbearing age use contraception — and Europeans are more likely than Americans to be practicing birth control. In most European countries, more than four out of five women of childbearing age who were married or in a marriage-like relationship were using a contraceptive method at the time of the survey. The use rates ranged from 92 percent in Hungary in 1993, to 66 percent in Lithuania in 1995 (see Table 1). A 1995 survey in the United States showed that three-quarters (75 percent) of currently married American women ages 15 to 44 were using a contraceptive method; 69 percent of formerly married American women were using a method.

I don't think that fully explains the low birth-rate. You may think it does. Then again, nice 20-year old study.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:However, your new "revision" is also problematic - what do the genetic purity of Europeans have to do with the issue of religion coming in? Or abortion.

Unless they are remarkably exceptional as regards birth control, one might reasonably expect they are having fewer babies because they're having an abortion or two.

We have already looked at abortion rates in Europe, which vary between countries, but tend to be higher in the North than the South, and with an even more marked difference between East and West.

But if you look at the average, Europe is comparable to the US on abortion rates - and if you don't include the outlier that is Russia, the European rate is lower than yours.

And the proportion of Non-European immigrants in Europe overall is not actually that great to make a difference.

It may well be that we are better at contraception, though. Socialised medicine often includes free birth control. It does in the UK.

Anyway, still waiting for you to back up.your statements with factual evidence.

Or to clarify your terms. Is someone who has a Non-European parent part of your "Genetically European" "native population", or not?

danivon wrote:Anyway, still waiting for you to back up.your statements with factual evidence.

Well then, be patient. Real patient.

Or to clarify your terms. Is someone who has a Non-European parent part of your "Genetically European" "native population", or not?

Sure, why not?

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Anyway, still waiting for you to back up.your statements with factual evidence.

Well then, be patient. Real patient.

Unsubstantiated BS it is then.

Or to clarify your terms. Is someone who has a Non-European parent part of your "Genetically European" "native population", or not?

Sure, why not?

I am asking what your definition is.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:Anyway, still waiting for you to back up.your statements with factual evidence.

Well then, be patient. Real patient.

Unsubstantiated BS it is then.

Well, no, it's just not what you want. You're welcome to believe Europe is thriving. I've told you Italy and Germany are below replacement rate--you can see it for yourself. You want me to do a dissertation and I've no interest in it.

Or to clarify your terms. Is someone who has a Non-European parent part of your "Genetically European" "native population", or not?

Sure, why not?

I am asking what your definition is.

For what purpose? So you can continue your crusade?

Whatever, kidda.

Texas grand jury clears Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing and indicts makers of videos instead...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us ... oogle.com/

I was just about to post a link.

I know, a grand jury In Texas following the lead of a Republican DA who was tasked to look into it by a Republican Lt. Governor might seem a bit partial, but now we have some traction...

Prosecutors in Harris County said one of the leaders of the Center for Medical Progress — an anti-abortion group that made secretly recorded videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood officials trying to illegally profit from the sale of fetal tissue — had been indicted on a charge of tampering with a governmental record, a felony, and on a misdemeanor charge related to purchasing human organs.

That leader, David R. Daleiden, 27, the director of the center, had posed as a biotechnology representative to infiltrate Planned Parenthood affiliates and surreptitiously record his efforts to procure tissue for research. Another center employee, Sandra S. Merritt, 62, was indicted on a felony charge of tampering with a governmental record.

The record-tampering charges accused Mr. Daleiden and Ms. Merritt of making and presenting fake California driver’s licenses, with the intent to defraud, for their April meeting at Planned Parenthood in Houston.

freeman3 wrote:Texas grand jury clears Planned Parenthood of any wrongdoing and indicts makers of videos instead...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/us ... oogle.com/

Sure. Let's see the transcript and then decide. As you well know, an indictment is nothing like a conviction. Let's see if the case even goes to trial.

Btw, a grand jury cannot "clear" anyone of wrongdoing--no matter what the deputy DA or the NYT says. All they can do is not indict. They receive one side's version of what happened and are not triers of fact.

This is absolute bilge.

We shall see. http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/26/h ... activists/

Yeah...the grand jury not indicting is not equivalent to an acquittal; however, it's generally fairly easy to get an indictment. The failure to indict is a good indicator that there is nothing there.

As for the Centers for Medical Progress, it's all fun and games until the government indicts you

I love the hot air smear of the DA's office-- they post information that a deputy DA who did not work on the grand jury case has a connection to Planned Parenthood. Talk about hot air--an attempt to smear the DA with allegations of conflict of interest because one DA in the office has connections to Planned Parenthood. I guess when you (Hot Air) got nothing, you go with that.

To be fair, when I saw this I thought of the grand jury investigations in police shootings where the prosecutors were not actively seeking an indictment but were sort of throwing it on the grand jury . Generally, prosecutors are seeking to get indictments and try to persuade the grand jury to indict. if the DA did not believe in the case, then it would not be a surprise that the grand jury did not indict. But at this point we have no idea how the DA presented its case.

freeman3 wrote:Yeah...the grand jury not indicting is not equivalent to an acquittal; however, it's generally fairly easy to get an indictment. The failure to indict is a good indicator that there is nothing there.

You don't know that--unless you've seen the transcript. Have you?

As for the Centers for Medical Progress, it's all fun and games until the government indicts you

No, none of it is fun and games. PP was marketing baby parts. I don't know anyone who has watched the videos and thinks "fun and games."

I love the hot air smear of the DA's office-- they post information that a deputy DA who did not work on the grand jury case has a connection to Planned Parenthood. Talk about hot air--an attempt to smear the DA with allegations of conflict of interest because one DA in the office has connections to Planned Parenthood. I guess when you (Hot Air) got nothing, you go with that.

Right, that's why they POSTED that the person did not work on the case--to "smear."

Um.

To be fair, when I saw this I thought of the grand jury investigations in police shootings where the prosecutors were not actively seeking an indictment but were sort of throwing it on the grand jury . Generally, prosecutors are seeking to get indictments and try to persuade the grand jury to indict. if the DA did not believe in the case, then it would not be a surprise that the grand jury did not indict. But at this point we have no idea how the DA presented its case.

Thus self-refuting your opening statement. :)

In general, it's pretty easy to get an indictment. Care to try and refute that proposition? generally, grand juries are secret so we don't get to see transcripts.

As for fun and games comment that is not referring to the videos but the undercover shenanigans that CMS pulled. If they committed a crime in obtaining the videos then they should be punished. Don't you agree? Or should we not publish individuals who commit crimes because they are on our side politically?

The Hot Air piece was a smear and was not a legitimate claim of conflict of interest. Period. It was very bad journalism .

My last paragraph was pure speculation. Withdrawn.