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.
Maybe universal heathcare doesn't necessarily equal better healthcare, but the United States is the only western industrialized nation that does not have universal heathcare, and Massachusetts is helping to set the standard in this nation to have it implimented. How is this not noteworthy? Doesn't that work in Boston's favor in this discussion?
Again, not trying to start a healthcare debate and AGAIN universal healthcare doesn't equal better healthcare. Also, universal health, like any system has its pros and cons and is dependent on the implementation of the system to determine the overall benefit. Whether it will work in the favor of Boston depends on how it is implemented; it could backfire and further burden an already heavy tax burdened state or because of the small population size of Mass. (comparatively speaking) it can work great.
Quote:
I don't have the statistics on which hospitals have more beds. However, I am sure that overall, the bed numbers are adequate for the populations of both cities. Since the TMC is made up of numerous institutions, I am sure that if we took numerous institutions in Boston and added the beds of Mass. General, Brigham and Women's, Beth Israel Deaconess, Children's, etc., there would be a comparable number of hospital beds per person for both Boston and Houston.
Boston is also a city that attracts international patients and patients from around the country.
I was merely comparing the beds of the ranked hospitals, not the overall beds of each city. Like you said, I am sure the bed count of each city is adequate.
The TMC, itself, not including the other hospitals in Houston attends to 5.5 million visitors each year; this is roughly equal to the entire population of the Houston metro.
You're also missing the children's category
Texas Children's Hospital (Houston)
#2 - Respiratory Disorders
#3 - Cancer
#3 - Heart and Heart Surgery
#4 - Digestive Disorders
#5 - Neurology and Neurosurgery
#6 - General Pediatrics
#8 - Neonatal Care
I'm not trying to say Houston ranks higher than Boston in medicine... but it certainly deserves a lot more credit than you care to give.
I have no where said that Houston should not be proud of its healthcare system, not once. I am simply saying that it should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Boston.
A couple of other points you mentioned earlier:
- More Hospital Beds and Doctors in Houston than Boston: Houston as you know is more populated so naturally the total amount in the above categories will be higher. Here is an interesting read on per capita supply of beds, specialists and doctors http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/atlases/Capacity_Report_2009.pdf (broken link)
Houston per capita has more hospital beds and Boston per capita more specialists and primary care physicians.
I am sure that you can agree that quantity does not always equal quality. The fact is that our hospitals are better funded with lower infant and maternal mortality rates. (Boston:Boston, MA | Fit Pregnancy
Houston: Houston, TX | Fit Pregnancy (http://www.fitpregnancy.com/bestcities2007/40572272.html - broken link))
Again, not trying to start a healthcare debate and AGAIN universal healthcare doesn't equal better healthcare. Also, universal health, like any system has its pros and cons and is dependent on the implementation of the system to determine the overall benefit. Whether it will work in the favor of Boston depends on how it is implemented; it could backfire and further burden an already heavy tax burdened state or because of the small population size of Mass. (comparatively speaking) it can work great.
Well since we can agree that Boston has a high standard of healthcare the only issue would be accessibility, which Universal coverage (aprox. 98% of the population is insured) achieves.
The law has been in effect since 2006 with very good results. In 2006 a little over 10% of the population was uninsured and now at 2%. I think it is something to be very proud of personally, being the first state in the nation to pass this law.
As far as tax burden is concerned Massachusetts is concerned it is 23rd in the nation according to the Tax Foundations (http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sl_burden_ustotal&allstates-20080807.pdf (broken link)) which puts it right in the middle in comparison to the rest of the country, the "taxachusetts" stereotype is so dated it isnt even funny.
I have no where said that Houston should not be proud of its healthcare system, not once. I am simply saying that it should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Boston.
A couple of other points you mentioned earlier:
- More Hospital Beds and Doctors in Houston than Boston: Houston as you know is more populated so naturally the total amount in the above categories will be higher. Here is an interesting read on per capita supply of beds, specialists and doctors http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/atlases/Capacity_Report_2009.pdf (broken link)
Houston per capita has more hospital beds and Boston per capita more specialists and primary care physicians.
I am sure that you can agree that quantity does not always equal quality. The fact is that our hospitals are better funded with lower infant and maternal mortality rates. (Boston:Boston, MA | Fit Pregnancy
Houston: Houston, TX | Fit Pregnancy (http://www.fitpregnancy.com/bestcities2007/40572272.html - broken link))
I do realize that there are other socioeconomic factors behind the above, but quality of care is a major factor as well.
Well Houston is home to 2 of America's biggest refineries; increasing the chances of cancer and other illnesses. The fact that you keep excusing Houston's healthcare from being placed with Boston is ignorance. America as a whole is more familiar with TMC than any medical center or hospital in Boston. Houston is not 2nd tier when it comes to Healthcare.
However I forget I'm debating with a stereotypical close-minded Bostonian who knows no better.
I have no where said that Houston should not be proud of its healthcare system, not once. I am simply saying that it should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Boston.
A couple of other points you mentioned earlier:
- More Hospital Beds and Doctors in Houston than Boston: Houston as you know is more populated so naturally the total amount in the above categories will be higher. Here is an interesting read on per capita supply of beds, specialists and doctors http://www.dartmouthatlas.org/atlases/Capacity_Report_2009.pdf (broken link)
Houston per capita has more hospital beds and Boston per capita more specialists and primary care physicians.
I am sure that you can agree that quantity does not always equal quality. The fact is that our hospitals are better funded with lower infant and maternal mortality rates. (Boston:Boston, MA | Fit Pregnancy
Houston: Houston, TX | Fit Pregnancy (http://www.fitpregnancy.com/bestcities2007/40572272.html - broken link))
I do realize that there are other socioeconomic factors behind the above, but quality of care is a major factor as well.
I am not sure what the relevance of this? Mass. is a more socialized state and its citizens pay more in taxes for that. Aside from the funding from NIH and other medical research institutions, none of that adds any importance to Boston as pertaining to the OP of which is the number 5 city. I think people are confusing the TMC with Houston's healthcare system. The TMC serves the region, the country, and the globe, while other hospitals in Houston serve the metro area. As I've said before 5.5 million patient visits to the TMC, a majority of these aren't coming from Houston.
Back to the OP:
Houston has the TMC, the port, NASA and other aeronautical company operations, energy, and manufacturing as part of its economic repertoire.
Boston has healthcare, finance, education, and biotech.
Well Houston is home to 2 of America's biggest refineries; increasing the chances of cancer and other illnesses. The fact that you keep excusing Houston's healthcare from being placed with Boston is ignorance. America as a whole is more familiar with TMC than any medical center or hospital in Boston. Houston is not 2nd tier when it comes to Healthcare.
However I forget I'm debating with a stereotypical close-minded Bostonian who knows no better.
How would you know any of this? Do you work in the industry? If so for who? I do, and i can tell you people in the industry are well aware that Boston is the premier medical city in the country.
I have stated time and time again that Houston has some excellent facilities that it should be proud of, but to compare it to Boston is not fair because it is in a different league. The rankings, NIH funding and results all prove that. Please tell me why Boston is number 1 in NIH funding and Houston is 11th, when all this superstar research is going on in Houston that is apparently not happening in Boston.
I could care less if you think more people know about TMC than the institutions in Boston, the people who matter know about what is going on here (Industry experts, NIH, government)
As far as being a typical closed minded Bostonian, I have lived in Boston for under 2 years and have lived in quite a few different cities and countries, so I have no personal bias. That is why I voted for SF in this poll and also why I have only commented on the Healthcare argument and nothing else, the fact that you cannot realize after all those studies and articles that Boston is tops in the nation shows how incredibly slow you really are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
I am not sure what the relevance of this? Mass. is a more socialized state and its citizens pay more in taxes for that. Aside from the funding from NIH and other medical research institutions, none of that adds any importance to Boston as pertaining to the OP of which is the number 5 city. I think people are confusing the TMC with Houston's healthcare system. The TMC serves the region, the country, and the globe, while other hospitals in Houston serve the metro area. As I've said before 5.5 million patient visits to the TMC, a majority of these aren't coming from Houston.
Back to the OP:
Houston has the TMC, the port, NASA and other aeronautical company operations, energy, and manufacturing as part of its economic repertoire.
Boston has healthcare, finance, education, and biotech.
I mentioned the tax burden because you assumed that Massachusetts had a high tax burden due to the Universal Health Care law in place, I was showing that the tax burden is moderate (23rd in the nation). As far as how it adds to the OP I agree it doesn't.
I agree with all you said as far as the categories that Houston and Boston both have, both cities are amongst the most influential in the nation and for the record I voted for San Francisco anyways.
How would you know any of this? Do you work in the industry? If so for who? I do, and i can tell you people in the industry are well aware that Boston is the premier medical city in the country.
I have stated time and time again that Houston has some excellent facilities that it should be proud of, but to compare it to Boston is not fair because it is in a different league. The rankings, NIH funding and results all prove that. Please tell me why Boston is number 1 in NIH funding and Houston is 11th, when all this superstar research is going on in Houston that is apparently not happening in Boston.
I could care less if you think more people know about TMC than the institutions in Boston, the people who matter know about what is going on here (Industry experts, NIH, government)
As far as being a typical closed minded Bostonian, I have lived in Boston for under 2 years and have lived in quite a few different cities and countries, so I have no personal bias. That is why I voted for SF in this poll and also why I have only commented on the Healthcare argument and nothing else, the fact that you cannot realize after all those studies and articles that Boston is tops in the nation shows how incredibly slow you really are.
I mentioned the tax burden because you assumed that Massachusetts had a high tax burden due to the Universal Health Care law in place, I was showing that the tax burden is moderate (23rd in the nation). As far as how it adds to the OP I agree it doesn't.
I agree with all you said as far as the categories that Houston and Boston both have, both cities are amongst the most influential in the nation and for the record I voted for San Francisco anyways.
OK Boston is 10 times better than Houston in healthcare.
America as a whole is more familiar with TMC than any medical center or hospital in Boston.
I think neither city has any hospital(s) that are really famous outside their respective regions. Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and to a lesser Extent Cleveland Clinics are the only really nationally known hospitals imHo. Oh, and Cedar Sinai in LA and Walter Reed near DC.
Quote:
Houston is not 2nd tier when it comes to Healthcare.
He(she) thinking that Houston is 2nd place doesnt mean they think Houston is 2nd tier.
I think neither city has any hospital(s) that are really famous outside their respective regions. Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and to a lesser Extent Cleveland Clinics are the only really nationally known hospitals imHo. Oh, and Cedar Sinai in LA and Walter Reed near DC.
He(she) thinking that Houston is 2nd place doesnt mean they think Houston is 2nd tier.
No, he stated Houston's healthcare system being mentioned in the same league as Boston's.
No, he stated Houston's healthcare system being mentioned in the same league as Boston's.
Oh.
The US is too modern and advanced as a whole for any one major metro's health care system to be that much more advanced than another major metro. The care and options is basically the same for the most part.
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.
