Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

1: GreatJustice, YOU obviously didn't read the article. Both of them accurately describe the article, where you fail to do so.

2: Existing in a east coast city meant that those people where not Americas poorest and had access to vastly greater options both in terms of work, charity and social services. America's poorest had no access to such things.

1. Saying "this doesn't count, it's hearsay" is rich considering it comes from the New York Times

The New York Times in 1910. The era of William Randolph Hearst and yellow journalism. While the Times wasn't as bad about it as the New York Journal and the New York World, newspapers of that era in general were heavily tabloid-esque compared to modern publications.

[scriver]

These associations (also known as lodges and fraternal organizations) were organizations in which working class men would get together and pool their money to pay for things such as medical care. Because they very much needed to keep costs down, the organizations would hire individual physicians with a yearly retainer, and then use them as much as required. If the doctors were substandard they probably wouldn't receive the contract the second year, and since the societies provided great job security they were in high demand. They actually pushed costs down to the point where the yearly cost of healthcare was around $2. If a member had a serious problem and required surgery, they could go to a fraternal hospital, where the cost was around $25 and quality was above average.

Socialism? Helping the poor in my America? Why I never.

[GreatJustice]

These associations (also known as lodges and fraternal organizations) were organizations in which working class men would get together and pool their money to pay for things such as medical care. Because they very much needed to keep costs down, the organizations would hire individual physicians with a yearly retainer, and then use them as much as required. If the doctors were substandard they probably wouldn't receive the contract the second year, and since the societies provided great job security they were in high demand. They actually pushed costs down to the point where the yearly cost of healthcare was around $2. If a member had a serious problem and required surgery, they could go to a fraternal hospital, where the cost was around $25 and quality was above average.

Socialism? Helping the poor in my America? Why I never.

In a sense, yes. A lot of them were Communist affiliated (especially the ones immigrants joined) and they're a favourite of Syndicalists and so on. However, they were entirely voluntary and were mostly at odds with Progressives of the time like Teddy Roosevelt for various reasons.

The New York Times in 1910. The era of William Randolph Hearst and yellow journalism. While the Times wasn't as bad about it as the New York Journal and the New York World, newspapers of that era in general were heavily tabloid-esque compared to modern publications.

So it was making up the low costs that workers were paying for their healthcare?

This is hardly an isolated, bombastic article. There is plenty of evidence showing that healthcare costs for mutual aid associations were extremely low, and I have yet to see anything to the contrary.

[Lord Shonus]

The article being discussed was proven in the twenties to be part of a broad campaign against Socialist proposals for a primitive form of Social Security, with as great a connection to the facts as similar articles, also published in the Times, that "proved" women didn't have the intellectual capaicity to be trusted with the vote, alcohol caused permanent muscle loss, Al Smith was required by the pope to forcibly convert the country to Catholicism if he became President, and a number of other political articles. Even major newspapers of that era were often at National Enquirer levels of veracity, as the Maine affair showed. Anything to sell papers, and the facts be damned.

[GreatJustice]

The article being discussed was proven in the twenties to be part of a broad campaign against Socialist proposals for a primitive form of Social Security, with as great a connection to the facts as similar articles, also published in the Times, that "proved" women didn't have the intellectual capaicity to be trusted with the vote, alcohol caused permanent muscle loss, Al Smith was required by the pope to forcibly convert the country to Catholicism if he became President, and a number of other political articles. Even major newspapers of that era were often at National Enquirer levels of veracity, as the Maine affair showed. Anything to sell papers, and the facts be damned.

Are there any sources to the contrary, then?

[Flare]

BTW, on Paul Ryan's medicare, he's giving everyone the same system that Congressmen have. Debbie Wasserman-Schutlz was basically saying "The Public is just too stupid to pick out their health care" when she kept repeating "It won't work for Americans" on loop as Paul Ryan kept asking her if it was good enough for Congressmen, why not the general public?

All you have to bring up on this is someone in congress not doing their homework and not knowing what they're talking about when they disagreed with something? Haven't you done the same thing with agreeing with Ryan's medical policies without knowing what they were and how they worked?

Not only that, but are you appealing to the authority and claiming that since a congresswoman didn't know that the answer must be the opposite?

[mainiac]

Okay, now where I'd say the previous poster probably didn't read the article, I'd say you definitely didn't read the article.

You know that based on a post that consisted mostly of me talking about other research?  Interesting.

The reason why I said it consisted of hearsay by a single person is because... the entire article is nothing but repeating what one person said stated as opinion.  I'm not labeling it as such because I think it's wrong, I'm labeling it as such because that's what the damn thing said.

If you want a contrary source then how about the CDC report I linked to showing that insurance rates were far lower then the levels the doctor claimed decades later.  Insurance rates certainly didn't go down during that time frame seeing as it's the time period where working class incomes rose the fastest that century.

And yes the AMA did shut down a lot of medical schools.  That's because the medical schools were complete rubbish and the AMA was introducing science and peer reviewed practices into the field.  Before that you had a lot of "doctors" who were bullocks.

[GreatJustice]

The reason why I said it consisted of hearsay by a single person is because... the entire article is nothing but repeating what one person said stated as opinion.  I'm not labeling it as such because I think it's wrong, I'm labeling it as such because that's what the damn thing said.

Yet it's a person quoted by the New York Times of 1910, whereas what evidence you have is indirect and thus rather pointless. There are many, many other sources of this out there besides, but are generally either from sources you'd ignore or from books that I hardly expect you to jump up and read (such as Beito's From Mutual Aid To Welfare State). But if you want a direct source on the costs of healthcare for mutual aid associations, then here's one: Jewish Immigrant Associations and American Identity in New York, 1880-1939. Unfortunately, you'd have to buy the book to get to the bibliography, but the pages in the area cited should be sufficient.

If you can find a source to the contrary, then feel free to do so.

If you want a contrary source then how about the CDC report I linked to showing that insurance rates were far lower then the levels the doctor claimed decades later.  Insurance rates certainly didn't go down during that time frame seeing as it's the time period where working class incomes rose the fastest that century.

Then the doctor claimed decades later? Who? Dr. Morris Joseph Clurman? When?

And yes the AMA did shut down a lot of medical schools.  That's because the medical schools were complete rubbish and the AMA was introducing science and peer reviewed practices into the field.  Before that you had a lot of "doctors" who were bullocks.

Actually, the AMA had medical schools shut down using the authority of the Flexner Report, which was written by a man who was neither a doctor nor an authority on medical education. From that point on, they artificially restricted the supply of doctors to drive their own wages up, which also had the effect of increasing the cost of healthcare. Keep in mind that in 1910, homeopathic medicine and so on were rapidly losing ground and quacks were finding very little business, AMA intervention or no.

[Zangi]

Somewhat related... wouldn't it be something for people to look back 70-80 years from now... and cite the hate spewing media we have now as an accurate portrayal of what it is like in America now?

[GreatJustice]

Somewhat related... wouldn't it be something for people to look back 70-80 years from now... and cite the hate spewing media we have now as an accurate portrayal of what it is like in America now?

Sure would be preferable to them citing internet threads and claiming that people of 2012 had a tendency towards swearing, bad grammar and disrespect

[mainiac]

Do you care to actually cite a page or am I just supposed to quake in fear at the fact that you managed to find a book from the era.  Given the quality of your last citation I don't think that's likely.  Just because he's from the era doesn't mean his head isn't in his ass.  And considering that was absolutely nothing statistical, scientific or otherwise scholarly about his opinion I'd say the odds of this man's head being in his ass was quite like,ly.

[GreatJustice]

Do you care to actually cite a page or am I just supposed to quake in fear at the fact that you managed to find a book from the era.  Given the quality of your last citation I don't think that's likely.  Just because he's from the era doesn't mean his head isn't in his ass.  And considering that was absolutely nothing statistical, scientific or otherwise scholarly about his opinion I'd say the odds of this man's head being in his ass was quite like,ly.

It helps for you to actually click the link, seeing as how it leads directly to the area of importance . Follow it along for about five pages, as it covers the necessary details.

[RedKing]

More to the point, it's an editorial. It's like citing Ann Coulter as proof that Obama is setting up FEMA death camps for his political opponents. Because she said so.

And I would remind you, Ann gets published in a number of otherwise respectable publications.

[mainiac]

It helps for you to actually click the link, seeing as how it leads directly to the area of importance

Unsurprisingly that is exactly what I did.  I found absolutely nothing that would indicate any data at all on medical insurance rates in society as a whole.

Maybe before you say we can't understand your sources you should stop linking to such terrible sources.

[GreatJustice]

It helps for you to actually click the link, seeing as how it leads directly to the area of importance

Unsurprisingly that is exactly what I did.  I found absolutely nothing that would indicate any data at all on medical insurance rates in society as a whole.

Maybe before you say we can't understand your sources you should stop linking to such terrible sources.

Does this have ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand whatsoever? No, it doesn't. Why don't you complain that it doesn't have any data relating to the percentage of adult males riding horses vs cars while you're at it?

Insurance rates are UTTERLY irrelevant when healthcare can be paid for out of pocket.