Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
"A socialist idea doesn't need to transform the nation into a "truly Socialist country" for it to be a rotten idea."
This fantastic, almost surreal fabrication is shown to be what it really is when you consider that, not most, but EVERY industrialized nation on the face of God's earth has adopted this "rotten idea," and that while most every country is struggling to balance their books these days, NOT ONE country is considering scrapping universal healthcare, nor is even one foreign nation considering adopting our "system."
We stand alone on this one.
JL
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
The WHO survey (from the year 2000) that indicates the US healthcare ranks 37th in the world is not accurate.
In fact the WHO has stopped doing it because it ackowlegded it's too difficult to do.
It is also based on several factors to rank countries that some countries have an unfair advantage over others.
To simply state the '37th' as some fact is untrue.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"Put differently, how much of U.S. health care is spent on those over 70, compared with the proportion spent on that population in any other country? How many other countries spend what we spend on late-stage cancer cases. In virtually every other state-provided health care system, older patients or those with late stage cancer can simply die, or else pay for it themselves. Here, we give them treatment if they want it, and people other than the patient pay for most of it."
I think there has been a fair amount of relatively inarguable information available of late that demonstrates the majority of healthcare costs occur in the final 10 years of lives. How much other countries spend on late-stage diseases (cancer, as an example) is something of a moot point- as it stands, decisions to end care or limit treatment are made all of the time in the US- by insurance companies, with profit motives. If you have enough $ to afford continuing care, then you pay for it (or not- your choice)- this is the case in the US, and in any other 'socialized' healthcare system in the world.
The decision to end or limit care is commonly made everywhere in the world. I, for one, would prefer that the profits of a private company and their shareholders not be the driving force in that decision.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
bluering: "The WHO survey (from the year 2000) that indicates the US healthcare ranks 37th in the world is not accurate."
Umm, blue, you might want to read this:
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html
World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems
The World Health Organization has carried out the first ever analysis of the world's health systems. Using five performance indicators to measure health systems in 191 member states, it finds that France provides the best overall health care followed among major countries by Italy, Spain, Oman, Austria and Japan.
The findings are published today, 21 June, in The World Health Report 2000 – Health systems: Improving performance*.
*Copies of the Report can be ordered from bookorders@who.ch.
The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries – San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
apogee, saying that end-of-life care decisions are made all the time by insurance companies doesn't really respond to my point. Of course those decisions get made. The issue is whether they result in the same outcome. In the U.S. they do not -- we provide much more of such care than anywhere else.
John
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Good, apogee, now read the second half of the report where it lays down the various criteria used to formulate the 'ranking'.
|
|
nature
climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
bwwwajajajajahaha
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
bluering, you are going to turn away any rationale that anyone presents to you regarding the overall ranking of the US healthcare system. What's the point?
You made a statement that the publicized WHO ranking is not accurate, and the WHO has clearly, unequivocally given the US an overall ranking of 37th. If you want to cite other aspects of that report to support your position, fine. But don't make stupid, blanket statements that are blatantly false.
Go ahead and cite a few sources that are relatively objective who demonstrate that the US healthcare system is nearly the best in the world, using similar criteria as the WHO. ('objective' being the operative word in this challenge.)
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
"If the problem with Republicans is they ignore the cases where the market leads to a suboptimal allocation of goods or services"
No John, I'd say that the problem with Republicans is that they ignore the fact that if we have a legislative process, any legislative process at all, then making effective public policy is impossible as long as we equate money to free speech.
I Can think of no better example than the current health care debate, where even more than usual, the workings of the legislative process are out there for all to see.
Health Care stakeholders are out there shopping their campaign contributions to the highest bidder. What the legislators are bidding, in their chase for campaign dollars, are a willingness to drop elements of the plan designed in the public interest.
Of course as a free market fundamentalist, in your eyes, this is all well and good because corporations will always do the job better than government.
But for the rest of us , we recognize that certain( not all) elements of the economy are best handled collectively in order to provide the best outcomes.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"The issue is whether they result in the same outcome. In the U.S. they do not -- we provide much more of such care than anywhere else."
John, 'having the same outcome' and providing 'more of such care than anywhere else' are two different things. Being able to determine exactly how a particular treatment or procedure improved patient outcomes is a notoriously difficult thing to demonstrate- it's kind of like saying that the Bush policies kept us safe post-9/11- impossible to prove, but easy to spin for political advantage (in any direction).
There is no doubt that the US provides an exceptional amount of advanced care, and it seems that much of this care is experimental, expensive, and driven by labs and pharmaceutical companies that have strong influence on implementing care or treatment (until an insurance company decides to stop paying- then that treatment is over). This tentacle of corporate-based healthcare needs to be whacked clean off.
The bigger, more relevant question is how much of this expensive, experimental treatment is improving the quality of life of the individuals? And who is really benefitting from the use of these procedures- the patient or Big Pharma?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Ricky,
I'm at work and have neither the time nor the access to data here to prove my point. I will do so in a few hours when I get home. For now, I'll just give two personal anecdotes that caused me to investigate this.
My wife is an RN, and one of her co-workers is an RN from the U.K., whose mother is still in England. The National Health Service denied her mother's request for Phosamax because "it's too expensive and you're too old." Her mother was in her mid-70's.
An Austrian exchange student who lived wiht my wife's family became like another brother to her. About ten years ago, he was diagnosed with colon cancer. Although the cancer was not at an early stage, it was such that any standard American insurance policy would have covered the necessary treatment. The Austrian national health system did not cover it, and he could not afford the treatment without leaving his wife and children paupers. He died in his mid-50's in a situation where he almost certainly would have been treated and lived were he insured here.
More to follow.
John
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
Yeah, but the Rest Of The World does it that way, so we should too.
|
|
Jeremy Handren
climber
NV
|
|
Those horrorshow stories are completely pointless. I'm sure it is possible to dredge up many similar stories for every Health care System in the world.
Its the equivalent of saying that a cold day in July is proof positive that Global Warming is a hoax.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Jeremy,
I cannot agree (surprise!) with your conclusion on free speech. Speech is only free if the government does not interfere with it. The fact that someone with more money can propagate more speech changes nothing. Ideas circulate for cheap, as any internet surfer can attest.
I find your argument particularly curious because the big statkeholders were all on board the Democrats' proposals. Why was that? Was it bribery by the stakeholders, or extortion by the Democrats?
The proponents of nationalized medical care cannot believe that the protests of the health care "reform" proposals come from the grass roots, but they make that assumption to their peril. For that matter, so do the Republicans. Most of the "tea party" types I've met distrust both parties equally, and have a well-founded fear that any of the proposals the Democrats have put on the table threaten to reduce their care, raise their taxes or costs, or both.
John
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
Apogee, did you read this part?
Fairness of financial contribution: When WHO measured the fairness of financial contribution to health systems, countries lined up differently. The measurement is based on the fraction of a household's capacity to spend (income minus food expenditure) that goes on health care (including tax payments, social insurance, private insurance and out of pocket payments).
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
"Those horrorshow stories are completely pointless."
Not pointless, really. They serve as tremendous political fodder for Repugs who are completely off-their-rockers about this whole healthcare reform debacle. And the Repug droids that chime in here regularly (cchopper, chaz, suap, bluering) gobble it up like a McDonalds hamburger.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Yes, blue.
Did you read this part:
"Although significant progress has been achieved in past decades, virtually all countries are under- utilizing the resources that are available to them. This leads to large numbers of preventable deaths and disabilities; unnecessary suffering, injustice, inequality and denial of an individual's basic rights to health."
Gosh, what does that sound like?
Shall we continue the spin-a-thon? I betcha we can tear this article apart and pull out bits and pieces out of context that support our view of this issue. But in the end, the WHO made this summary statement:
"The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
So Obama's going to improve healthcare by spending less money on it?
Let's try spending less on education first, to see if that makes education better.
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
Have a hamburger, Chaz. Then go fly that kite.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
No, apogee, the entire 'report' is flawed from the get-go, and as a result, it's findings are very suspect.
And you want to base our healthcare on the weak findings of a UN organization?
The examples you cite are weak too.
"Although significant progress has been achieved in past decades, virtually all countries are under- utilizing the resources that are available to them. This leads to large numbers of preventable deaths and disabilities; unnecessary suffering, injustice, inequality and denial of an individual's basic rights to health."
What?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!