Tronix75 says health care was bettter and more people had insurance in the 1950's

[mikewrona]

Tronix75 claims that health care was better in the 1950's and early than it is today following the Johnson Great Society Era. For those of you who were kids in the 1950's and earlier and whose parents did not have Union Health Care Insurance at the big Steel/Automotive plants please respond to the survey.

[therising]

I wasn't alive in the '50's so I won't respond.

But, your poll is a little distorted by excluding those whose parents worked in certain industries. A LOT of people worked in those industries at the time, it was the way of the times - so why exclude them?

[Jim Ostrowski]

First, we need his actual quote.

Second, why have a poll? What we need is facts.

[LHardy]

OK; how about the stats to prove the point?
There must certainly be such stats or is this like everything else connected to the Dem socialist program, make believe.

[mikewrona]

I wasn't alive in the '50's so I won't respond.

But, your poll is a little distorted by excluding those whose parents worked in certain industries. A LOT of people worked in those industries at the time, it was the way of the times - so why exclude them?

The Unionized industries tended to be in the northeast and and California and not nationwide. The Great Society Program was designed to deal with a national health care crisis that existed throughout the country for the elderly and children.

I figure that most people on SU will say I agree with Tronix even though the fact is people died a lot younger, and children died much more often than today.

Life Expectancy: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/life/index.html

Infant mortality: http://www.mindspring.com/~hlthdata/daimint.html


But, vote anyway. You may have had relatives who were not employed at Bethlehem, Republic, Chevy, Ford, etc.

[mikewrona]

First, we need his actual quote.

Second, why have a poll? What we need is facts.

Just vote that you agree Jim with him Jim. Even you think people lived longer in the 1950's than today.

[biker]

It doesn't take a lot of deep thinking to conclude that, of course health care is better today than fifty years ago.

Think of the implantable devices that keep millions alive today.

Think of the drugs that have been introduced since the 50s.

The survey, as written, is nonsense.

What percentage of the population as a whole is covered by insurance now as compared to then? Now that would be interesting.

[mikewrona]

OK; how about the stats to prove the point?
There must certainly be such stats or is this like everything else connected to the Dem socialist program, make believe.

Gee, you voted on the opion poll about me when there was no facts. Whats your problem now?

[LHardy]

Pleae refresh my memory where I voted in an opinion poll about you.
If you hadn't noticed, I usually aviod opinion polls about board members.

[mikewrona]

[QUOTE=biker]It doesn't take a lot of deep thinking to conclude that, of course health care is better today than fifty years ago.

Think of the implantable devices that keep millions alive today.

Think of the drugs that have been introduced since the 50s.

The survey, as written, is nonsense.

You are nonsense. It's an opinion poll. Vote I agree and go away to something else.

[mikewrona]

Pleae refresh my memory where I voted in an opinion poll about you.
If you hadn't noticed, I usually aviod opinion polls about board members.

Hmmm. I don't recall you making the same point about the opinion poll regarding me. You must play favorites when it comes to polls and board members.

I didn't start the board member poll business. Just following newly accepted precedence.

[therising]

They're two seperate issues - Healthcare may have been cheaper in the 50's, with better coverage - but, obviously the technology wasn't there and people did a lot earlier.

[LHardy]

Hmmm. I don't recall you making the same point about the opinion poll regarding me. You must play favorites when it comes to polls and board members.

I didn't start the board member poll business. Just following newly accepted precedence.

So you cannot back up your lie about me is what you are really saying isn't it?
Come on mike; you recall me doing something and are trying to make it clear that I had, show us where I had voted in an opinion poll about you.

I do not recall doing any such thing, I could be wrong but I will not take your word for it.

Until then you are just lying to make a senseless point because few will join your poll.

[mikewrona]

They're two seperate issues - Healthcare may have been cheaper in the 50's, with better coverage - but, obviously the technology wasn't there and people did a lot earlier.

Healthcare wasn't cheaper. You avoided going to the doctor until it was absolutely necessary. You couldn't afford a visit and you couldn't afford the insurance. That's the reason the federal government got involved in the first place The old and the young were dying because of an inability to get affordable health care.

[mikewrona]

medicarerights.org


In the early 1950s, Social Security officials realized that older Americans were facing a health care crisis. The Social Security system, which was created as an economic safety net for older Americans, was failing to protect them against the greatest single cause of economic dependency in old age–the high cost of medical care. The 1950 census showed that the aged population had grown from 3 million in 1900 to 12 million in 1950, or from 4 to 8 percent of the U.S. population. Two-thirds of older Americans had incomes of less than $1,000 annually, and only 1 in 8 had health insurance.1 Private insurers had long considered this illness-prone population a "bad risk," and even unions were generally unable to purchase coverage for retirees through employer-sponsored plans.


But, you will still see people vote that health care was better. Not because it's true, but because they have a fantasy that any day other than today was a better day.