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.
And we've seen how that worked out in Cuba and the Soviet Union.
Communist Systems are incredibly different from social democracies like Sweden, Norway, Germany, and France. Apple and oranges. No one wants a system like that.
It's worth nothing though...
Cuba has a higher or equivalently ranked healthcare system than the US
You managed to only use Finland's statistics bureau to get that Unemployment stat, which you neither compared or contrasted to anything really.
"....to only use Finland's statistics bureau?"
What? Like that ain't good enough? Oh, I know, you're a much better source, right?
You failed to meet the burden of proof to support your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyIU29
As far as your other sources:
The NCPA
Taken directly from the NCPA's website: Our goal is to develop and promote private, free-market alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial
private sector.
Jagadeesh Gokhale, The Author of your NCPA Piece
Taken from his Bio Jagadeesh Gokhale is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C
The Cato Institute
Mission statement:
The mission of the Cato Institute is to originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace
Congratulations, you've used clearly biased, partisan sources for your information!
You have failed to prove bias. You are free to provide sources to refute their claims, but you can't.
Key findings of this report are highlighted below.
Healthcare costs are rising faster than levels of available funding. The rising cost of healthcare cannot be met with current levels of public funding, raised via taxation and insurance. The main drivers of rising healthcare costs in Europe are:
l ageing populations and the related rise in chronic disease;
l costly technological advances;
l patient demand driven by increased knowledge of options and by less healthy lifestyles;
l legacy priorities and financing structures that are ill-suited to today’s requirements.
The future of healthcare will be shaped by seven separate, but interconnected, trends.
l Healthcare spending will continue to rise, not only because of inflationary drivers, but because of growing recognition by policymakers that improved health is linked with greater national wealth.
l Keeping the universal healthcare model will require rationing of services and consolidation of
healthcare facilities, as public resources fall short of demand.
l General physicians will become more important as gatekeepers to the system and as co-ordinators of
treatment for patients with multiple health issues.
l More effective preventive measures and fundamental lifestyle changes will be promoted to
encourage healthy behaviour.
l European governments will need to find a way to improve collection and transparency of health data
in order to prioritise investment decisions.
l Patients will need to take more responsibility for their own health, treatment and care.
l Governments will have to tackle bureaucracy and liberalise rules that restrict the roles of healthcare
professionals and artificially raise the cost of medical research.
Source: The future of healthcare in Europe, A report from the Economist Intelligence Unit
The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2011
I can do this all freaking day long. I have thousands of pages of documents on healthcare systems and financing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyIU29
And then there's your assertion that the Scandinavian countries have tiny, foreign populations.
Norway's foreign population: 600,900 or 12%
Finland's foreign population: 281,300 or 5.2% United States foreign population: 309, 350 or .103%
I made no such assertion, but thanks for using a Straw Man to misrepresent my position to cover up the fact that you failed to prove your claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
In 2011 there were approximately 600,900 people of some non-Norwegian background residing in Norway, or 12.2% of the total population
Wow, a whopping 600,900 non-Norwegians.....that is 400,000 people less than the State of Montana.
The operand here is "non-Norwegian" ---- and that is how it is stated on the web-site....their words, not mine.
Your claim was that homogeneity plays no role, when you obviously need to review the PyschLit and SocLit databases for articles and research to set you straight.
You also claimed those societies were not homogenous, when in fact they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyIU29
Also you don't present any sources about the Scandinavian education system.
I most certainly did.....I never say anything that isn't written in a government agency report, private agency report, classified document or declassified document.
Acceptance is offered after finishing upper secondary school with general study competence.
The education system in Euro-States are nearly all the same, with a few slight variations, but the bottom line is....
....only the cream of the cream of the cream of the cream of the crop gets to go to university.
In Germany, the kids in the Hauptschule don't get no free university. In fact, they aren't even allowed to set foot on campus.
Do kids at the next higher track, Schulart mit mehreren Bildungsgängen go to university for "free" (snicker)? Nope, then go to the Berufsschule (maybe).
What about the next higher track, the kids in the Realschule, do they go "free" (snicker)? Nope, they go to the Berufsfachschule.
What about kids in the Gesamtschule? Maybe. Maybe after they finish Fachoberschule and they score high enough on the test they can go, of course, by that time they'll have 22-24 years of age and would be starting university akin to a "non-traditional" student in the US.
And kids at Gymnasium? Yup. After they graduate high school at age 16, they'll go to Gymnasiale Oberstufe for 2 years and assuming they score high enough, they go to university for free -- if they don't score high enough, then most likely they'll go to the Fachoberschule
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyIU29
First of all you can't just compare the SAT to Scandinavian tests. That makes no sense.
Why can't I compare them?
You compared the economy of Norway which has a population smaller than Cook County, Illinois to the whole United States.
Does that make sense?
Comparing GDPs of US Cities to Scandinavian States......
City of Atlanta: $294,589,000
Finland: $247,389,000
City of Boston: $336,232,000
Denmark: $314,889,000
City of Chicago: $571,000,000
Sweden: $523,804,000
City of Los Angeles: $765,759,000
Norway: $499,667,000
How embarrassing is that?
The SAT is an entrance exam, just like TISUS.
Quote:
For students who received their final school grades after 31 December 2009, there is an additional entry requirement for mathematics as follows:
The student must have successfully completed courses in mathematics to reach the level of the Swedish course Mathematics A (approximately 10 years of mathematics studies).
If the US adopted that, the number of "students" (snicker) in college would be cut in half.
Quote:
Admission to all bachelor's level education is limited. All study programmes and courses have a fixed number of places, which are usually exceeded by the number of applicants. Every university and university college has its own procedure for selecting among eligible applicants. The criteria applied include: grades obtained, results from previous courses, assessment of work samples, interview results, special admission tests and work experience. These criteria vary from university to university.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyIU29
In addition, even if one does not go to university.....
Wow....look at you moving the goal-posts.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyIU29
The above countries are well educated because education is free and available to all, unlike in the United States. Degrees in all fields of study, yes the liberal arts included, are encouraged, unlike in the US
Education is "free" only to those who score incredibly high on exams.
The Left Wing would never tolerate the European education system in the US for even a second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyIU29
Sources my family, who live in both countries and have children currently in the system
I'd go on, but what's the point?
What's the point?
You ripped another poster....
Quote:
Originally Posted by CincyIU29
You should probably have a lot more experience with these countries before making sweeping generalizations about them.
....and then trashed on me for presenting "biased sources" and come to find out your "experience" is anecdotal evidence from biased relatives.
The point is you lost.
If you're going to tap-dance, ditch the goal-posts first....
Communist Systems are incredibly different from social democracies like Sweden, Norway, Germany, and France. Apple and oranges. No one wants a system like that.
It's worth nothing though...
Cuba has a higher or equivalently ranked healthcare system than the US
the WHO rankings of 191 health systems worldwide placed the United States 36th,
But the WHO study is much like the annual magazine rankings of colleges: It grabs plenty of headlines but rests on questionable analysis. A closer look at the WHO health care study reveals startling assumptions, critical lapses in statistical judgment, and a clearly predetermined political agenda.
Breaking “new methodological ground,” the WHO report rates national health care performance according to five trendy flavors of the month: life expectancies, inequalities in health, the responsiveness of the system in providing diagnosis and treatment, inequalities in responsiveness, and how fairly systems are financed.
First, consider the study’s data. Health statistics for each country were collected from individual agencies and ministries, assuring wide disparities in definition, reporting technique and collection methodology. Indeed, the report concedes that “in all cases, there are multiple and often conflicting sources of information,” if sources at all. For the many nations that simply do not maintain health statistics, the WHO “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” Without consistent and accurate data from within a single country, how can meaningful comparison be made among 191 different countries?
Second, the report places undue weight on statistical devices like disability-adjusted life expectancies (DALEs), which measure how long a person can expect to live in good health. The problem is, all the resources a country spends helping disabled people live longer and more comfortably do nothing to help its DALE score, so countries aiming for a good WHO ranking have no reason to spend more helping the disabled. DALEs assume that disabled people’s lives have less value than those of people without disabilities, and they make similar discounts on the lives of the elderly. Should the United States stop spending money on its disabled? On its seniors? The WHO’s criteria would give granny the boot.
Finally, on the basis of those flawed statistical measures, the WHO unleashes an emotional assault on free markets, saying that governments must hold the “ultimate responsibility” in “defining the vision and direction of health policy, exerting influence through regulation and advocacy, and collecting and using information.” WHO dismisses markets as “the worst possible way to determine who gets which health services,” arguing that “fairness” requires the highest possible degree of separation between who pays for health care and who uses it.
Overall, the WHO rankings’ mathematical formulations serve only to distract attention from the authors’ underlying distaste for individual choice in health care. The report largely ignores the extraordinary benefits the American marketplace brings to health care worldwide, such as new drugs, advanced diagnostic instruments such as MRIs and CAT scans, and lifesaving therapies for cancer and heart-disease patients. Under a WHO-style health care system, lifesaving research and innovation would be stifled and individual choice would be discarded in favor of collective control. Bureaucrats would decide who receives care — and who does not — on the basis of statistical tallies that devalue the lives of the elderly, the disabled and the chronically ill.
By contrast, a free-market health care system upholds the right of every person to make his own decisions. Patients are given choices, not issued numbers, and doctors are freed from impersonal “expert panels” dictating what care they can and cannot provide. The WHO’s idea of government-provided universal health care is a fantasy that masks a system of dangerous, formula-based rationing. If you value your health, don’t trust the WHO.
to rank a group on infant mortality, when many places don't even count it the same was is cherrypicking....ie many countries wont count a birth (infant death) if the unless the baby made it past 24 hour, so a 'bluebirth' doesn't count..yet we DO count it
do you not think that teen births also effects infant mortality???
to rank a group (country) on life expectancy for a health care ranking, and not look at the demographics of the people (ie americans are fatter, have less exercise, and eat not as health) and that add/subtracts from the total life expectancy's and has nothing to do with health care, but more about life style...mean while the difference between us and #1 is about 1.8 years...not much to cry about
to rank a country on whether or not they have a national health care plan is also not proper/fair way to rank
so lets look at LE
Quote:
uhm life expectancy has very little to do with health CARE
the usa ranked in the 30's. a LE of 79.1...... the highest is japan at 82.6
could it be demographics???
the USa has an AVERAGE life expectacny of 79.1, just recently up from 78.9
the difference between us and france ....1.6 year
the difference between us and canada.....1.6 year
the difference between us and germany...a HALF a year
the difference between us and the untied kingdom...4 months
but if you break it down further
in the USA, the asian american female has a life expectancy of 86(the HIGHEST in the WORLD)......(((higher than the 82 in the actual country of japan)))
...........whites are around 83...........hispanics around 76............and blacks have a LOW LIFE expectancy around 66m/68f.............giving us the AVERAGE of 79.1.............if you took the (12-15% population) of blacks off that list.........we would have one of the top three life expectancies in the world....
demographic plays BIG ROLES we also have the HIGHEST teen pregnancy (in the modern world)(first world nations) ...which leads to low baby weight, and high infant mortality.....and the highest DEMOGRAPHIC with teen pregnancies...the african americans (especially southern AA)
life expectance is more about genetics and LIFE STYLES, than health care (ie hamhocks, fried twinkies, and fried chicken, mcdonalds, fatbacks certainly dont help)
most other countries (like europe)..they walk/bike
most other places dont have 4 tv's to a house
posting about life expectancy..means actually very little to medicine....... and the reason....... is not about or due to health care............its about.........LIFE STYLE (especially EATING, and EXERCISE), and demographics (ethnics), to include eating habits, GENES, TEEN PREGNANCIES, traffic accidents, cancer, etc..
ALL effect those numbers for life expectancy
yes I said traffic accidents....you think that the 2x amount of traffic accidents we have compared to the rest of the world is NOT going to lower the top level???
funny japan is higher than any of the european countries...in life expectancy..and the 3rd lowest in infant mortality....connected...hmmmmm....certainly genetic
life expectancy is not about health care.. but about healthy living...
2.our outcomes (diagnosis and TREATMENT, and RECOVERY) is some of the BEST in the world a) we rank in the top 10 of RECOVERY from cancer
b)American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women.
c)American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men.
d)Among European countries, only Sweden has an overall survival rate for men of more than 60 percent.
e)For women, only three European countries (Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland) have an overall survival rate of more than 60 percent.
those(b-e) figures reflect the care available to all Americans, not just those with private health coverage. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.
But what about Canada???
a)For women, the average survival rate for all cancers is 61 percent in the United States, compared to 58 percent in Canada.
b)For men, the average survival rate for all cancers is 57 percent in the United States, compared to 53 percent in Canada.
In the United States, 85 percent of women aged 25 to 64 years have regular PAP smears, compared with 58 percent in Great Britain.The same is true for mammograms; in the United States, 84 percent of women aged 50 to 64 years get them regularly — a higher percentage than in Australia, Canada or New Zealand, and far higher than the 63 percent of British women.
which country has the highest cancer rate (cases not recovery)...denmark..they are the SICKEST (in terms of cancer) in the world
Last edited by workingclasshero; 01-15-2014 at 08:36 AM..
And then there's your assertion that the Scandinavian countries have tiny, foreign populations.
Norway's foreign population: 600,900 or 12%
Finland's foreign population: 281,300 or 5.2% United States foreign population: 309, 350 or .103%
The United States is 13% "foreign born."
Our "foreign born" draw heavily from really economically and educationally depressed areas of the world, while in many Eurozone countries, their "foreign born" population means the next door western democracy. The US is one of the few countries that takes in and attempts to assimilate and take care of such huge numbers of impoverished people - about 10 - 20 million illegal immigrants can attest to that. Compare even to Canada and Australia, where getting in and staying in is much more difficult.
I understand what you're trying to do. I actually think many Euro and Scandinavian have some policies that could work here.
But we are infinitely more diverse in population, geography, politics, religion, thought and lifestyle. It is harder to get anything done the larger the population that needs to agree. And especially the larger the differences between the populations.
Much of what is in place now in European and small Scandinavian countries was put in place when their populations were even more homogenous than it is now.
Believe it or not it really is easier to manage small populations with similar backgrounds and have them arrive at a consensus on what is best for everyone than large nations. It's why small states in New England seem to do so well compared with, say, California. But let's be honest: most people would prefer to live in California and it feels much more dynamic than Maine.
It's why the United States can really only be compared to Russia, Brazil, maybe China and India... though even they have problems dealing with population we do not have. Compare the United States to the ENTIRE European continent, viewed as a unit, to obtain more accurate comparisons.
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.
Liberty.
