Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are just not as intellect, clever or well read as you are, and clearly your knowledge is superior to the London School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.
No debate!
Neither my abilities nor those of anyone else are the topic of this thread. But one limited study by one institution does not equal a definitive conclusion in an area as broad as public health -- particularly when the study results are used to denigrate the United States on a forum administered in the United States.
We are just not as intellect, clever or well read as you are, and clearly your knowledge is superior to the London School of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene.
No debate!
Thats not his point... it is the parameters of the research that was done which are very limited.
I don't take bringing an issue to the table, "denigration." Furthermore, in an interview with the researchers, they clearly state the United States has good care, but not coverage for approximately 1/5 or 1/4 of its citizenry and this substantially affected their study.
Those are essential facts, and colour the study both favourably and unfavourably for this country of which I am a citizen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Neither my abilities nor those of anyone else are the topic of this thread. But one limited study by one institution does not equal a definitive conclusion in an area as broad as public health -- particularly when the study results are used to denigrate the United States on a forum administered in the United States.
I don't take bringing an issue to the table, "denigration." Furthermore, in an interview with the researchers, they clearly state the United States has good care, but not coverage for approximately 1/5 or 1/4 of its citizenry and this substantially affected their study.
Those are essential facts, and colour the study both favourably and unfavourably for this country of which I am a citizen.
Any study which calls the United States "worst" is denigrating to this country, particularly when the parameters are manipulated to ensure the desired results. Did the researchers take into account that the United States has a 3000-mile border with a third world country, whose least prosperous citizens have free access to a risky border crossing and precarious living conditions while here? Would the numbers be skewed somewhat, were the 75-year age limit of results removed for the dreadful summer of 2003 in France?
Comparing the geographic vastness, climatic diversity, and population fluidity of the United States with relatively tiny, homogeneous, and sparsely populated European countries (and highly developed Japan, which shares many of these characteristics) is fraught with variables which impact the findings.
I am struck by the volume of negative "studies" concerning health care in the US, and especially how few of them ever mention the overwhelming number of innovations in diagnosis, treatment, and care which orginated in the United States, or which have been made broadly available through US efforts both domestically and overseas.
America-bashing on the political level is always to be expected. That's part of the nature of collective human envy. But attempts to portray the medical profession of our country as somehow inferior, as part of a strategy to imply the superiority of socilaized systems (most of whom rely heavily on American-inspired innovation), are often hypocritical and counterproductive.
Again, it appears you have more facts at your disposal than others.
As a former health professional--in this country for more than 20 years, and also having worked abroad in the public health arena, I believe these studies are essential for our understanding and increasing our capacity to compare and contrast the benefits, and the deficits in the health care universe.
Perhaps we are on opposite sides of the fence on this issue as I am a very big proponent of a more universal approach to health care, and in particular an emphasis on prevention. Without prevention, and without offering care to the under- and un-insured, studies like this, whether you approve or disapprove of them, will always bring out the deficits in our country's system and glaringly point out the absence of access to approximately 34m people.
And, when I do statistics, or rather when I did statistics, I took in many other parametres than mentioned, but that did not necessarily mean that an abstract of a published piece of work made clear which or what those included.
Clearly we are discussing a blip on yahoo, and not the authors' entire study.
Hence, this discussion is unbalanced, but in ways we are not addressing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeledaf
Any study which calls the United States "worst" is denigrating to this country, particularly when the parameters are manipulated to ensure the desired results. Did the researchers take into account that the United States has a 3000-mile border with a third world country, whose least prosperous citizens have free access to a risky border crossing and precarious living conditions while here? Would the numbers be skewed somewhat, were the 75-year age limit of results removed for the dreadful summer of 2003 in France?
Comparing the geographic vastness, climatic diversity, and population fluidity of the United States with relatively tiny, homogeneous, and sparsely populated European countries (and highly developed Japan, which shares many of these characteristics) is fraught with variables which impact the findings.
I am struck by the volume of negative "studies" concerning health care in the US, and especially how few of them ever mention the overwhelming number of innovations in diagnosis, treatment, and care which orginated in the United States, or which have been made broadly available through US efforts both domestically and overseas.
America-bashing on the political level is always to be expected. That's part of the nature of collective human envy. But attempts to portray the medical profession of our country as somehow inferior, as part of a strategy to imply the superiority of socilaized systems (most of whom rely heavily on American-inspired innovation), are often hypocritical and counterproductive.
If you just search and get a good cross section of current health care reviews for the United States, most (if not all) will indicate there are in fact some serious issues with our health care system.(And much as some would enjoy blaming this along with all the other problems in our society on illegals, studies indicate they in fact are just a small piece of the health care puzzle.)
These are real studies citing real issues. They are not all inherently biased against America due to some wicked hidden agenda. Nobody questions that there is top of the line innovative care available to some, but the disparities between levels of care is becoming more striking.
It is not being "unpatriotic" to admit this and to see the urgent need to work towards reform.
Hmmm. Speaking of preventable deaths, I guess no one remembers the heat wave which killed thousands of senior citizens in France in the summer of 2003 when the entire country went on vacation. An atrocity like this would have horrified Americans....
Ouch!! Good point Yeledaf. I guess the French should've "prevented" this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
