Health Care Data
DA posts this in comments, from Wikipedia:
DA posts this in comments, from Wikipedia:
The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).I don't have a position on health insurance/care reform (though, as is so often the case, GOP lunacy is pushing me Dem-ward) but that's flat-out astonishing.
posted by Winston Smith at
11:54 PM
13 Comments:
SHUT UP! SHUT UP! US HEALTHCARE IS THE BEST IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!! SAYING OTHERWISE MAKES YOU AN AMERICA-HATER!!!!!!!!!!
Another fun fact: even though there are nearly 50 million uninsured Americans, the US STILL spends more public sector money on health care than the UK...where everyone is covered. Thank god we ain't got none of that godless socialism round these parts.
Well, we can hardly blame the GOP for a system that was developed under both parties.
The USA is #1 in responsiveness, but the WHO also uses a criterion called "Fairness of financial contribution," which clearly tilts the list in favor of socialized/nationalized systems. [Altho Denmark is #34.] I'd expect nothing else from an NGO like the WHO.
Basically, they slot the USA last among developed countries, and there's a huge dropoff from there. Cuba is #39, and even CNN admits there you have to bring your own sheets and food to the hospitals, which are often "decrepit and unsanitary."
Sources:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html
CNN video:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/08/08/cnn-uses-pro-communist-american-tout-cuban-health-care
1) No one said anything about the GOP.
2) LOL
3) "but the WHO also uses a criterion called "Fairness of financial contribution," which clearly tilts the list in favor of socialized/nationalized systems."
Well, does it tilt in favor of socialized systems for a good reason?
Well, we can hardly blame the GOP for a system that was developed under both parties.
Well, no, they've only fought the concept of a national health care system like all other First World countries have for over 60 years, that wouldn't be fair, TVD.
From the Wiki article that I referenced earlier:
Data compiled by international industry experts indicates that the US is the world leader in biomedical research and development as well as the introduction of new biomedical products; industry advocates also maintain that the high cost of health care in the U.S. has encouraged substantial reinvestment in such research and development.[7][8][9][10] Despite that, the US pays twice as much yet lags other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, which are among the most widely collected, hence useful, international comparative statistics. For 2006-2010, the USA's life expectancy will lag 38th in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).[11]
..................................
According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the United States is the "only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure that all citizens have coverage" (i.e. some kind of assurance).[17][18]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_health_care_system
Tom = WINNER! most irrelevant response competition!
Congrats, Tom!
Aw, shux, thx, WS. Sorry for looking up the facts.
It is true that the GOP has historically opposed nationalizing health care, so it might be fair to say that they are primarily to blame for us not having it. However, since President Clinton controlled both houses of congress in 1992---and failed---obviously it doesn't enjoy unanimity even in the Democrat Party.
Then as now. The consensus thing.
Well, does it tilt in favor of socialized systems for a good reason?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Regardless, the WHO is of a certain political mindset, and its inclusion of socio-politics as a criterion should be kept in mind when evaluating their claims.
The Wiki, DA? Shame, shame. There are many factors at play, one being the US calculates infant mortality differently than most other nations, another is our murder rate. Or perhaps we just like to party too much, which is our constitutional right.
But it's not my purpose to make a blanket defense of the US health system. I favor any solutions that increase the quality and quality of its supply, anything short of nationalizing health care insurance, which is not the same thing as health care itself.
It's incumbent on those who favor nationalized health insurance to convince the consensus of the American people, and simply savaging its opponents isn't getting the job done.
No, seriously Tom. I was just pointing out (as the Mystic did) that your points were--though not uninteresting perhaps--not relevant to the points at issue. I'm not harshing on you here, just pointing out that nobody was blaming the GOP. So your defense of the GOP/attack on the Dems was irrelevant.
(And I just basically *assumed* that WHO was a wimpy UN-y organization with vaguely socialist leanings, incidentally.)
As for the "fairness of financial contribution" category, that won't be relevant unless it's a substantial determinant of our overall score. Even if it is, I doubt that, if we eliminated it, it'd move us up into the top 30.
What'd really be to the point here is if you could find some respectable rating of the overall quality of our health care system according to which it didn't suck.
So, anyway, just pointing out--in a friendly way--that your points aren't really relevant.
The Wiki, DA? Shame, shame. There are many factors at play, one being the US calculates infant mortality differently than most other nations, another is our murder rate. Or perhaps we just like to party too much, which is our constitutional right.
That doesn't explain why we spend twice as much money per capita on health care than other countries, for essentially the same outcomes, which you'll find outside the Wiki if you care to do any detailed research about the subject, which you apparently haven't aside from a few pseudo-factoids that you can't be bothered to document. Not that there's anything wrong with that, to quote Jerry Seinfeld.
No, mayhem and homicide aren't covered in the Constitution, but outside of big cities they tend to occur more in Southern states, perhaps because they adhere to the 'traditional values' of honor and retaliation than us godless, unrepentant secularists in the blue states.
I consider the current health care system a version of Moloch worship, wherein America sacrifices money and lives so that the health care/insurance post-industrial complex may keep going in the name of profit. Another traditional "American" value again come to life, look up "The Gilded Ages" for more details.
It's incumbent on those who favor nationalized health insurance to convince the consensus of the American people, and simply savaging its opponents isn't getting the job done.
No, the opponents savage themselves, with drivel like this:
A new smorgasbord of GOP excuses on hamana-hamanas on health care none more ludicrous than the circular logic of Senator Chuck Grassley. Asked why he said, quote, “We should not have a government plan that will pull the plug on grandma.”
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRASSLEY: I said that because—two reasons. Number one, I was responding to a question at my town meetings. I let my constituents set the agenda. A person that asked me that question was reading from language that they got off of the Internet. It scared my constituents and the language—the specific language I used was language that the president had used at Portsmouth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Of course, the president had used that language to rebut those, like Grassley and Palin, who had made such an outrageous claim in the first place. Grassley basically admitted that he was enabling the fear of his constituents instead of puncturing the misconception with facts. When asked again if the House legislation would pull the plug on grandma, he said, quote, “It won‘t do that.”
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRASSLEY: I know the Pelosi bill doesn‘t intend to do that, but that‘s where it leads people to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OLBERMANN: Senator John McCain meantime defended Sarah Palin‘s claim that Obama‘s bill would create death panels, quoting, “Look, I don‘t think they were, quote, ‘death panels.‘ Don‘t get me wrong. But on the best treatment procedures part of the bill, it does open it up to decisions being made as far—that should be left—those choices left to the patient and the individual.”
Both McCain and Senator Orrin Hatch separately suggested that bipartisanship would be in full flower if Senator Ted Kennedy had not been absent from the debate.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3255212
1/ns/msnbc_tv-countdown_with_keith_olbermann/
I think there shouldn't be too much of a problem selling national health care reform when the majority of the American people can be disabused of the notion that it means a government official will be in charge of life-and-death decisions for Grandma, never mind that it hasn't happened when Grandma is on Medicare today..........
Yes, WS, I did misread your comment as another attack on the GOP. My apologies.
For the rest, the form of the argument is usually this---US health care sucks by some objective standard, or falls short of the results achieved by other countries spending less per capita.
Therefore, national health insurance must be instituted in the US. Which of course doesn't necessarily follow.
As for Uncle Sam not killing granny, that's the representation, and certainly the laws as written will not say so. However, a look at those so-called "better" countries shows cause for alarm, albeit largely anecdotally. But if the public doesn't trust the MSM or the BBC [the only sort of source acceptable in fora like these] for the big picture, they're vulnerable to being called crazy. But I've been following the British press for years on this subject and my negative view isn't based on anything Sarah Palin said.
I think it's a reasonable intuition that bad things will happen. Even if the possibility is that they could happen, that's enough to argue for any other mechanism than national health care insurance first---expanding the supply of doctors, more funding for the safety-net county systems, etc. Repeal the laws make interstate health plans illegal. Repeal the laws against catastrophic-only insurance.
For it appears probable [to me] that a government-run insurance backed by an entity that can literally print money will offer insurance cheaper than the private sector, and eventually put them out of business as surely as John D. Rockefeller did with Standard Oil's competitors.
Mr. DA's report of surveys that show Americans favoring desirable pies-in-the-sky, but that isn't the same thing as supporting the bill on offer, or ramming it through without a real consensus.
So, convince and consense away.
"As for Uncle Sam not killing granny, that's the representation, and certainly the laws as written will not say so. However, a look at those so-called "better" countries shows cause for alarm [in my fevered imagination], albeit largely anecdotally. But if the public doesn't trust the MSM or the BBC [the only sort of source acceptable in fora like these] for the big picture, they're vulnerable to being called crazy [and rightly so]"
Fixed that for you.
At any rate,
1. Evidence, please?
2. Nobody's saying you can't have all the care you want for Grandma or Grandpa; single-payer advocates (something that's also not even on the table at the moment) are just saying the same thing insurance companies are saying right now: this is what and when something will be covered. Want more? Write a check.
Oh, and pay no attention to the fact that MEDICARE, THE SINGLE-PAYER PLAN THAT ALREADY COVERS GRANDMA AND GRANDPA does no such thing. N.B. Grandmas and Grandpas show up at the polling stations in large numbers. Nothing to see here. Move along...
"For it appears probable [to me], that a government-run insurance backed by an entity that can literally print money will offer insurance cheaper than the private sector, and eventually put them out of business as John D. Rockefeller did with Standard Oil's competitiors"
Even granting this possibility (which is not even on the table right now), I fail to see why I should cringe in fear at it, given the the generous funding our *single payer* defense system receives. Of course, we couldn't possibly spend such sums on something that is designed to promote the general welfare rather than provide for the common defense. How un-American. (And P.S. Boo-fucking-hoo for the private health insurance companies; and I say that as someone in the insurance business).
Oh, and surveys actually also show that Americans don't know WTF is in the offing ( http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/poll-most-dont-know-what-public-option.html) due to:
1. widespread ignorance
2. a concerted disinformation campaign
2. some combination of those two
Even granting this possibility [that gov't insurance will drive out the private companies] (which is not even on the table right now)
I acknowledged it wasn't on the table. I do see it as inevitable.
In fact, you support my point, that you and many like you think that's just fine. But I don't, and neither do many or most Americans.
Which was my key point. No consensus. "Ram" away.
And altering my words as you did in the first graf isn't cricket. If you mindlessly trust the MSM or BBC, that speaks poorly of you, it doesn't make the other fellow crazy.
Like I thought - argument by assertion, backed up by no facts or evidence whatsoever. Feel free to predict all sorts of 'inevitable' things for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Which obviously speaks very well of you.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home