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.
My home country is on the list, as is another that I have rights of citizenship to.
And before anyone asks, few people in either one would want to trade it for the disaster that is the US healthcare system.
There is no "list" with any meaning whatsoever. All of these "best health care" country lists are agendized propagandacious nonsense. If your personal favorite country has socialized medicine, then you are an advocate of tyranny and are blind to the realities of that health care system. Socialized medicine can never be good, because, by definition, it is based on tyranny, state control, and sacrifice of the individual and individual freedom. It is, by definition and identification, evil. And to the degree our system embraces and integrates aspects of socialized medicine, it decays, deteriorates, and is destroyed.
And I include the stupid phony fantasy Leftist paradises of Nordica, which are all decrepit countries of failure, mediocrity, capitulation, and oh yeah, we provide their defense so they can waste their tax dollars on failed health care systems that feature waiting lists, death panels, and controlled costs.
CTCA is not national stats. It's a private company.
Who, like all other private clinics/companies/hospitals, are petitioned for their stats that are then used to compile the National Database. Where else do you think those figures come from?
There is no "list" with any meaning whatsoever. All of these "best health care" country lists are agendized propagandacious nonsense.
Kinda like the OP, eh?
Quote:
Socialized medicine can never be good, because, by definition, it is based on tyranny, state control, and sacrifice of the individual and individual freedom. It is, by definition and identification, evil.
And there we have it. It's not a matter of outcomes or access to treatment or infant survival rates - for conservatives, it's a matter of ideological axioms. If a system doesn't provide you the freedom to croak because of poverty, it's evil by definition.
There is no "list" with any meaning whatsoever. All of these "best health care" country lists are agendized propagandacious nonsense. If your personal favorite country has socialized medicine, then you are an advocate of tyranny and are blind to the realities of that health care system. Socialized medicine can never be good, because, by definition, it is based on tyranny, state control, and sacrifice of the individual and individual freedom. It is, by definition and identification, evil. And to the degree our system embraces and integrates aspects of socialized medicine, it decays, deteriorates, and is destroyed.
And I include the stupid phony fantasy Leftist paradises of Nordica, which are all decrepit countries of failure, mediocrity, capitulation, and oh yeah, we provide their defense so they can waste their tax dollars on failed health care systems that feature waiting lists, death panels, and controlled costs.
Aaah yes, the well known now popular American propensity to default to: "since we're showing badly, fake news the lists."
There is no "list" with any meaning whatsoever. All of these "best health care" country lists are agendized propagandacious nonsense. If your personal favorite country has socialized medicine, then you are an advocate of tyranny and are blind to the realities of that health care system. Socialized medicine can never be good, because, by definition, it is based on tyranny, state control, and sacrifice of the individual and individual freedom. It is, by definition and identification, evil. And to the degree our system embraces and integrates aspects of socialized medicine, it decays, deteriorates, and is destroyed.
And I include the stupid phony fantasy Leftist paradises of Nordica, which are all decrepit countries of failure, mediocrity, capitulation, and oh yeah, we provide their defense so they can waste their tax dollars on failed health care systems that feature waiting lists, death panels, and controlled costs.
You initially seemed like a reasonable person sharing his point of view. But this post suggests that you aren't reasonable at all. That you reject any data that does not support your position. That you won't consider anyone else's arguments. The problem with your argument, again, is that the market and the supplier are divorced from one another. The insurance companies, and the government in some cases, intercede between the two, and so the consumers often have no idea of the costs of services and supplies, and the suppliers are all in favor of that, because transparency is simply non-existent in this sector of the economy. Coupled with that, the insurance companies, and the government in some cases, have made price comparisons largely impossible, so competition in this market isn't free at all.
Therefore, it is your perspective that seems to be engaged in "phony fantasy."
I highly doubt that extreme preemies being counted as live births in the US but not in Europe accounts for our higher rates of infant mortality. Get real.
There's a reason why most European healthcare systems will decline to intervene for a fetus born at or less than 20 weeks of gestation: because the fetus is not viable and will not survive. There's no point in spending hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of euros/pounds/etc. for a tiny chance that the baby will survive...just to face high odds of expensive complications later in life that will greatly impact the baby's quality of life. Sometimes it is infinitely more merciful to let nature take its course. Have you ever seen the kinds of complications that frequently arise in people who were born extremely prematurely? I have. It's not pretty.
14 weeks is not a live birth, it's a miscarriage. A fetus at the 14th week of gestation's lungs are in what...the pseudoglandular stage? Not even developed lungs per se, so it's not gasping for air. It will not survive. Despite the absurdity of the "Born-Alive Infants Protection Act", the overwhelming majority of doctors & nurses will not intervene for a fetus born at less than 23 weeks' gestation. At 23 weeks, survival rates are still miserable...65-80% will die.
We do little to nothing to mitigate aggravating factors when it comes to high infant mortality. It's no wonder that in a country with no guaranteed access to quality healthcare...even for pregnant women...that we have one of the highest rates of infant AND maternal mortality in the developed world.
The US does not intervene below 20 weeks, either. Many countries do not intervene at 22 to 24 weeks.
Fourteen weeks will indeed be counted as a live birth in the US if the fetus has a heartbeat, gasps, or moves. Inclusion of such births significantly skews the mortality rate because preterm births account for most neonatal deaths.
The US uses the WHO definition of live birth:
World Health Organization, 1950
A live birth is the complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of a product of conception, irrespective of the duration of pregnancy, which, after such separation, breathes or shows any other evidence of life, such as beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or any definite movement of voluntary muscles, whether or not the umbilical cord has been cut or the placenta is attached.
"The World Health Organization’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems has long defined a live birth as any product of conception that shows signs of life at birth, with no consideration for birthweight or gestational age criteria. Although this definition remains unchallenged, countries have widely varying regulations for registration of birth that range from definition based to pragmatic. For instance, birth registration is required for all live births that satisfy the WHO’s definition of live birth in Canada, England and Wales, and the United States, whereas countries such as the Czech Republic, France, and the Netherlands specify limits based on some combination of gestational age (for example, at least 22 weeks), birth weight (for example, at least 500 g), or survival (for example, any live birth irrespective of birth weight that survives the first 24 hours after birth)."
"Conclusions: International differences in reported rates of extremely low birthweight and very early gestation births probably reflect variations in registration of births and compromise the validity of international rankings of perinatal and infant mortality."
Maternal mortality rates are also subject to differences in reporting, particularly biased by differences in the interval after delivery used for reporting in some countries.
It is worth repeating, noting, discussing -- that while many Americans choose to trash other countries and their health care system while defending the USA system, residents in those other countries aren't trying to change their systems to match the USA.
If those of you here who are so critical of other countries think your life is better -- enjoy....other countries don't care that YOU choose to trash their health care system.
They really don't.
Doesn't matter what you think -- just doesn't matter.
You initially seemed like a reasonable person sharing his point of view. But this post suggests that you aren't reasonable at all. That you reject any data that does not support your position. That you won't consider anyone else's arguments. The problem with your argument, again, is that the market and the supplier are divorced from one another. The insurance companies, and the government in some cases, intercede between the two, and so the consumers often have no idea of the costs of services and supplies, and the suppliers are all in favor of that, because transparency is simply non-existent in this sector of the economy. Coupled with that, the insurance companies, and the government in some cases, have made price comparisons largely impossible, so competition in this market isn't free at all.
Therefore, it is your perspective that seems to be engaged in "phony fantasy."
Brilliant. You've identified the problem. Now identify the solution: Removal of all government intermediation in the health care system. We can purchase everything else in the market by comparison shopping, reading reviews, and making rational judgments. Let's remove government from health care. Let's remove government from health insurance. If something turns out to be too expensive, then no one will buy it and the provider will end up in bankruptcy. If no will pay $6,000 for a prescription, no one will offer drugs that cost $6,000 for a prescription.
You've identified the problem and concluded that "the market isn't free at all". You're absolutely correct, and that's the problem. So now let's make it free. Separation of Health and State.
We live 8 years less than Japan and other civilized countries.
We pay double the amount.
We have Obesity problems - probably top in the world for a big country.
Your "list" is not a list at all "innovation"? "cures"?
Our most famous "cures" were socialised medicine. When Salk was asked if he was going to patent the Polio Vaccine, he said “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”
We have infant mortality rates much worse than some civilized country - again at DOUBLE the price. You seem to like headlines as opposed to health. Health is measured by specific statistics. I think we are #37 in the world - and that's with leaving 20+ million without insurance and paying double the price.
Sorry, your post is a FAIL. Our system sux big time and everyone - docs, hospitals, researchers, pharma, pols, patients and others KNOW IT. You seem to be the lone wolf who didn't hear the stats.
I hate to spell it out this way, but many of you live in a fantasy land bought by fake news.
Another quick point. Most of the "great" thinks about American health care are in the SOCIALIST states. For example, MA leads the nation and has full health insurance for all (98% plus). Hawaii is similar. The "anti-socialist" red states often have much worse health care and life expectancy.
Oh, our violent crime rate in SOME regions (Not the Northeast) - is 4X the average in the civilized world. Yes, that is part of health care - otherwise, why would the NRA not allow the CDC to study gun stats? And why do they fight against a doc making sure a parent has their guys locked up?
Sorry, FAIL. You proved the opposite point you were trying to make. Cubans live as long as Americans on 1/10th the budget or less.
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.
