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.
saganista, please don't confuse us with facts or having read the study.
We can't handle the truth.
Lists of multisyllabic diseases are impressive, but hardly consitute any kind of "truth", other than perhaps the existence of a spell-checker. Nor do they address any of the criticisms I have aimed at this study throughout the thread, dealing with geographic and population diversity, substantial undocumented and hence untreated populations, and the near-impossibility of comparing such vastly different social and cultural societies as, say, the US and Finland or Japan.
What many people in this conversation "can't handle" is moderately articulate and knowledgeable dissent from the usual numbing current of America-bashing that constitutes much of their daily attention. Since they can't handle anyone getting out of line, they respond with crudely-constructed strawmen and/or ad hominem attacks. That's not "truth". It's cowardice.
Moderately knowledgeable? You claimed that this was 'one study'. Somebody had to point out a half dozen more just like it. You claimed that Americans would never tolerate anything so horrific as the French heat wave. Somebody had to point out that on the same scale, outcomes in the Chicago heat wave were worse. You claimed that heat wave deaths were excluded from the study out of anti-American bias. Somebody had to point out that they've been excluded by definition for thirty years. You've been talking through your hat. Again. Cowardice? Those who are afraid to face up to truths about America out of simple jingoism and the fear that it will poke more holes in their already fatally flawed philosophies ought to give a little more thought to that word...
The American health care system has long been known for its treatment innovations, but efficiency and cost effectiveness have remained challenges.
-- The Joint Commission
U.S. health care leaders often say that American health care is the best in the world. However, recent studies of medical outcomes and mortality and morbidity statistics suggest that, despite spending more per capita on health care and devoting to it a greater percentage of its national income than any other country, the United States is not getting commensurate value for its money.
-- The Commonwealth Fund
Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center convened more than 30 leaders from across the country at Harvard University to discuss how to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of health care in the United States. The participants recommended a fundamental restructuring of our current delivery and reimbursement systems, with improvements funded by eliminating waste and increasing value.
-- Mayo Clinic Health Policy Center
The lack of a comprehensive health plan leaves almost 20% of the U.S. population without health insurance. Many other individuals are inadequately insured, in a complex array of financing arrangements that result in heavy administrative costs. Because financiers have largely taken over the financing and management of health services, they have become politically potent forces in maintaining the current chaotic, but largely profitable, system. Physicians and patients alike are being held hostage to decisions of for-profit insurers.
-- Richmond and Fein, Science Magazine
An estimated 45 million Americans are currently uninsured and the Institute of Medicine estimates that 18,000 of them die prematurely each year as a result. Health care spending has skyrocketed, with the typical insured family now paying, directly and indirectly, more than one-sixth of its income for health care. Rising costs have not been matched with greater efficiency in the health care system, with preventative care techniques and many proven therapies being under-utilized. Many experts agree that almost any system of universal health coverage would help address the issues of affordability and effectiveness, and would enable the health system to function better by expanding risk pooling and reducing the fragmentation of financing.
-- The Hamilton Project (Brookings Institution)
The American health care system is a study in contradictions. On the one hand, it offers some of the most advanced and effective care in the world. It supports some of the best trained providers and often utilizes some of the most cutting-edge technologies. It treats patients in some of the most advanced clinical settings available. If asked, most Americans would characterize their health care as the best in the world.
On the other hand, such observations do not tell the whole story or reflect the actual state of affairs. In fact, the quality and efficiency of America’s health care is quite low by international standards while the amount of money we spend for these services is quite high—bordering on the exorbitant. Health care spending today consumes 16 percent of the United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP)—a far greater share than in any other industrialized nation. Our costs translate to $5,635 per person per year—53 percent more than the per capita health spending of any other country, and 140 percent more than the mean per capita spending for all industrialized nations. If current trends continue, the United States will spend 21 percent of its GDP on health care by the year 2020.
What do we get for such expenditures? We do not enjoy higher levels of health care quality than our lower spending counterparts in other industrialized nations. American life expectancy is exceeded in 21 other countries. Infant mortality in the United States is the fifth highest of any industrialized country. More cancer cases per 100,000 people are reported in America than in half of industrialized nations. In addition, the United States has the highest obesity rate in the industrialized world.
-- National Governors Association, Center for Best Practices
I am generally against "socialized health care", but this is a great post with some insightful comments. I'd give you rep if I could. I don't think anyone except the insurance industry can argue that our current system works well.
I am skeptical about comparing France to the U.S., though. I'd be more inclined to compare it to New York, Texas, California or Florida. For example, I grew up in a poor, rural area of the south, and I'm not sure that France has an area that faces such a great challenge from a health and wealth perspective. From the outset, the U.S. government never stressed equality among rich and poor like France has, so I am not surprised that their poor are better off than our poor.
I am generally against "socialized health care", but this is a great post with some insightful comments. I'd give you rep if I could. I don't think anyone except the insurance industry can argue that our current system works well.
I am skeptical about comparing France to the U.S., though. I'd be more inclined to compare it to New York, Texas, California or Florida. For example, I grew up in a poor, rural area of the south, and I'm not sure that France has an area that faces such a great challenge from a health and wealth perspective. From the outset, the U.S. government never stressed equality among rich and poor like France has, so I am not surprised that their poor are better off than our poor.
Yea, it is unfortunate France was number one instead of one of the other 16 developed countries ahead of us. That gives all the Freedom Fry eaters the opportunity to deflect and make this a discussion about the evils of France instead of concentrating on all of the studies showing our system does not work too well, unless you have the money for quality insurance and care.
A lot of evidence and data and research on one side, a lot of emotional rhetoric and anti-France postings on the other. I am still waiting for somebody to post something...anything??... an academic study, a professional review by health care professionals, a positive endorsement from the private sector...that defends the U.S. healthcare system today as being in good shape.
If people are suggesting that all of the overwhelming evidence and feedback provided by actual professionals, as sag has been kind enough to share a portion of, is somehow all motivated by a self loathing and hatred of America, that is just patently absurd.
Moderately knowledgeable? You claimed that this was 'one study'. Somebody had to point out a half dozen more just like it. You claimed that Americans would never tolerate anything so horrific as the French heat wave. Somebody had to point out that on the same scale, outcomes in the Chicago heat wave were worse. You claimed that heat wave deaths were excluded from the study out of anti-American bias. Somebody had to point out that they've been excluded by definition for thirty years. You've been talking through your hat. Again. Cowardice? Those who are afraid to face up to truths about America out of simple jingoism and the fear that it will poke more holes in their already fatally flawed philosophies ought to give a little more thought to that word...
Let's use a hypothetical example. Let's say that a major industrialized nation had a socilaized medical system under whose relaxed rules the majority of physicians and healthcare professionals all took their vacation at the same time. Let's say that time included the month of August. Let's say that a health emergency occurred during the vacation period of those physicians and that thousands of people -- among whom were many over the age of 75 -- perished through the absence of medical personnel to respond to their critical needs or staff the clinics and hospitals.
Then let's perform a study of the efficacy of medical care, concentrating on preventable deaths -- those which likely could have been prevented with timely and efficient medical attention to critical needs. Let's make the focus of the study the years which included the disaster described above, but let's delete form consideration those preventable deaths among the most vulnerable sector of the population -- say, people 75 and over.
To add to the validity of the study, let's compare a group of tiny countries with homogeneous populations and limited climatic and geographic diversity with an immense, sprawling nation of (more or less, no one's sure) 300 million souls, with urban areas which contain many times the population of most of the nations used in the comparison, and public health challenges which would give Einstein a headache, let alone tax the ingenuity and resources of, say, the good doctors of Oulu.
On this increasingly out-of-control "study", add a dollop of residual anti- American prejudice and the delightful schadenfreude which often enlivens our European friends' perceptions, blend with the ever-present Bush Derangement Syndrome, and throw in comments like this from one of the impartial researchers: "I wouldn't say it (the last-place ranking) is a condemnation, because I think health care in the U.S. is pretty good if you have access. But if you don't, I think that's the main problem, isn't it?" (As if not having access isn't a problem anywhere...). Why, one can almost hear the contemptuous "sniff" at the end of this comment...from a woman who is polio-free, whose teeth are in reasonably good condition, and whose life-saving Pap smear tests were all deveoped by American researchers into immunology, dental hygeine, and gynecology, respectively.
It's obvious by now that this hypothetical example is not hypothetical at all. It is in fact the shaky basis for this thread's ongoing, collective attack on the American medical system (by people, I might add, who are served quite well by it, but are mum about that) -- and on anyone who dares to dispute the opinions of the left-wing pack who band together in collective outrage and frustration at their futile attempts to pigeonhole and demean dissenters.
"Jingosim?" I don't recall anyone's having advocated invading any of the other countries named in the study to capture their health care professionals and bring them here to instruct America's poor, ignorant physicians. What is more in the realm of reality is the eagerness of many of those European professionals to gain an H-1 visa or an J-1 HMG visa, to engage in study and research at the world's leading medical colleges, universities, and research institutions -- in the United States.
"Fatally flawed?" Ask the families of France about 2003 and their country's health care professionals who were at Antibes mocking Bush while their grandparents perished.
There are two sides to any conversation. You and your entourage just aren't used to admitting it.
Yea, it is unfortunate France was number one instead of one of the other 16 developed countries ahead of us. That gives all the Freedom Fry eaters the opportunity to deflect and make this a discussion about the evils of France instead of concentrating on all of the studies showing our system does not work too well, unless you have the money for quality insurance and care.
No one that I know has mentioned any "evils" of France. I love France. I have many friends in France. I hope to retire there someday. But a study which ignores the catastrophically inadequate response of the French healthcare system in 2003 is at least open to criticism, is it not? Or is all criticism to be directed at the US, with all other countries immune?
"Freedom fry eaters"....really. Is that necessary? Does that somehow dignify your argument? "Wingnuts." "Ditto-heads. "Right wing fundie whackos." There, I've given the peanut gallery a few things to titter at. Now they're happy. Are you?
Quote:
A lot of evidence and data and research on one side, a lot of emotional rhetoric and anti-France postings on the other. I am still waiting for somebody to post something...anything??... an academic study, a professional review by health care professionals, a positive endorsement from the private sector...that defends the U.S. healthcare system today as being in good shape.
Defending the US healthcare system? That comes close to asking for proof of a negative, with the negative being that "the US healthcare system is not terrible." Put your faith in lists of critical studies which ignore the factors to which I have referred time and time again in this thread, and which no one seems willing to address. But use your head for something besides an earring-holder: put Morocco on the border of France. Attach Bangladesh to England. Hypothethesize ANY of the other nations in the study having a 3000-mile border with a third-world country, and watch those positive numbers drop. There are simply too many variables to crudely compare the US to, say, Norway.
If you want a study, do some quick research and find the life expectancy and general level of health in the US that compare quite well to the rest of the developed world in spite of the many challenges that other, tiny, less populous and more favorably located and isolated countries do not face and which would overwhelm them if they did. Use some common sense here...
Quote:
If people are suggesting that all of the overwhelming evidence and feedback provided by actual professionals, as sag has been kind enough to share a portion of, is somehow all motivated by a self loathing and hatred of America, that is just patently absurd.
No one is suggesting that. But one person (myself) is suggesting that that motivation plays a role. Are you suggesting that it does not?
Feel free to twist my words. I never used the term "final." I specifically used the term "many", and I made the argument that the tragedy exposed a weakness (with which the French government apparently concurred, since it was a national scandal), but rather that exposed "many of the essential weaknesses of [something here about government-sponsored health insurance, I don't remember the exact wording]," with no specificity to France at all.
Here the twisting is your own. You didn't say that the incident revealed a "weakness" of the French government specifically and generally, as you imply here, but rather that it exposed "the but rather that exposed "many of the essential weaknesses of [something here about government-sponsored health insurance, I don't remember the exact wording]," with no specificity to France at all. Why are you so eager to attribute this ONE incident in ONE country and the reaction to it to "the weakness of universal healthcare in general," yet also so eager to relegate any study that places America's more capitalistic system at a lower level (by a myraid of factors) than almost all of the systems in the developed world (and a few in the developing world) with UHC to a mere propaganda effort by socialist conspirators who don't realize that "it's all just because of the illegals?" This is very inconsistent.
Quote:
and that the exclusion had a tangible impact on the research. The characteristics which I attributed to America are not applicable to France in the same degree -- which is precisely why I pointed them out.
France has conditions that aren't applicable to America, including but not limited to the lack of air conditioning, higher population density, and all those impoverished, semi-oppressed African immigrants who everybody talks about when they're trying to make the country out to be a hellhole. The longer life spans also mean they probably have a greater percentage of old people who were hurt disproportionately by the heat wave. I don't suspect that these matter to you since it's only possible for external conditions to make America's system look worse than it is, never the other way around.
Quote:
"Horribleness"? That is your inelegant term, not mine.
Damn right it is.
Quote:
"Universal health care"? Are you arguing that health care is not universal in the US, thereby confusing "health insurance" with "healthcare",
Depends on what you mean by "universal." I've certainly heard plenty of people (on "your side," as you put it below) prophecizing that "this country shall be destroyed if we go to universal health care" so apparently it's not just the liberal socialists who don't think we have it yet. If universal health care means everyone who needs it can go to an emergency room to be stabilized and then dropped off on the street once they're no longer in the condition of imminent death, then yes, we have "universal health care." If it means everyone having access to some minimum standard of comprehensive care then we don't have anything close to that.
Quote:
as your side is wont to do with "immigration" and "illegal immigration"? How obdurate.
And I'm the partisan crusader!
Quote:
A racist, clumsy, and ignorant rant. That governments are not perfect and should thus be discarded is a childish argument.
They shouldn't be discarded, they simply shouldn't have their policies equated with the countries in which they reside. Congress is not America. America is America. More deliberate misinterpretation here.
Quote:
Why do you feel compelled to offer slurs instead of reasoned arguments?
Do you refuse to ever resort to the "it's all the illegals' fault" argument ever again?
Last edited by fishmonger; 01-18-2008 at 11:05 AM..
Defending the US healthcare system? That comes close to asking for proof of a negative, with the negative being that "the US healthcare system is not terrible." Put your faith in lists of critical studies which ignore the factors to which I have referred time and time again in this thread, and which no one seems willing to address. But use your head for something besides an earring-holder
(good one! Maybe you wear earrings as an academic, I work in the real world of business. )
This argument is silly. Health Care is the top one or two cause of concern issue for Americans nationally this election cycle. Every Presidential Candidate has some solutions for health care included in their platform for Change. Being such a high charged issue, if there was any defense of the system it would be brought forward by some group or organization in either the public or private sector. The fact that American Businesses, Helath Care Organizations themselves, the General Public are all in agreement and consensus that this is a serious problem that needs fixing is something you do not see with any other high profile issue.
Put Morocco on the border of France. Attach Bangladesh to England. Hypothethesize ANY of the other nations in the study having a 3000-mile border with a third-world country, and watch those positive numbers drop. There are simply too many variables to crudely compare the US to, say, Norway.
Yes you seem to desperately want to put the blame on immigrants from the south for the entire health care problem, when there are many studies out there showing this is just a small part of the issue. Put up a Wall with Mexico tomorrow and we would still have serious problems that would demand fixing with the system.
No one is suggesting that. But one person (myself) is suggesting that that motivation plays a role. Are you suggesting that it does not?
What motivation if I may ask, other than educating and informing people as to the degree and causes for the problem to help push for needed reform?
What motivation do CEOs of American companies and Small Business Owners across America have to make the claims that American health care burden is making them uncompetitive in the global market and that left unchecked will seriously damage the American economy? Do they all secretly hate The American Way? Or maybe there is no secret hidden agenda and problems do exist? Could be.
Here the twisting is your own. You didn't say that the incident revealed a "weakness" of the French government specifically and generally, as you imply here, but rather that it exposed "the but rather that exposed "many of the essential weaknesses of [something here about government-sponsored health insurance, I don't remember the exact wording]," with no specificity to France at all. Why are you so eager to attribute this ONE incident in ONE country and the reaction to it to "the weakness of universal healthcare in general," yet also so eager to relegate any study that places America's more capitalistic system at a lower level (by a myraid of factors) than almost all of the systems in the developed world (and a few in the developing world) with UHC to a mere propaganda effort by socialist conspirators who don't realize that "it's all just because of the illegals?" This is very inconsistent.
1. The incident demonstrated an essential weakness of centralized planning. You claim it proves nothing. I win that argument.
2. I did not argue that anything is "all because of the illegals." I did say that the presence of a 3000-mile undefended border impacts the findings significantly. You may proceed as if that is not true, if you wish.
Quote:
France has conditions that aren't applicable to America, including but not limited to the lack of air conditioning, higher population density, and all those impoverished, semi-oppressed African immigrants who everybody talks about when they're trying to make the country out to be a hellhole. The longer life spans also mean they probably have a greater percentage of old people who were hurt disproportionately by the heat wave. I don't suspect that these matter to you since it's only possible for external conditions to make America's system look worse than it is, never the other way around.
Who is "everybody"? What "hellhole"? "Longer life spans" is illogical in this context. Rewrite.
Quote:
Damn right it is.
It's good to be proud of who you are.
Quote:
Depends on what you mean by "universal." I've certainly heard plenty of people (on "your side," as you put it below) prophecizing that "this country shall be destroyed if we go to universal health care" so apparently it's not just the liberal socialists who don't think we have it yet. If universal health care means everyone who needs it can go to an emergency room to be stabilized and then dropped off on the street once they're no longer in the condition of imminent death, then yes, we have "universal health care." If it means everyone having access to some minimum standard of comprehensive care then we don't have anything close to that.
1. Unlike you and your friends, I speak for myself. I know it's inconvenient for you, but it's part of being a right-wing fanatic.
2. Universal health care differs from place to place. Ask the citizens of Paris next time there's a heat wave.
Quote:
And I'm the partisan crusader!
No, you're the undisciplined thinker. It's a progressive habit.
Quote:
They shouldn't be discarded, they simply shouldn't have their policies equated with the countries in which they reside. Congress is not America. America is America. More deliberate misinterpretation here.
America is what the government says it is: that's what you want, remember? You're not sick unless the government says so; you're not well until they pronounce you healed. Be careful for what you wish for.
Quote:
Do you refuse to ever resort to the "it's all the illegals' fault" argument ever again?
I never have and I never will. But you do little more than hurl epithets. At this stage, it's endearing.
What motivation if I may ask, other than educating and informing people as to the degree and causes for the problem to help push for needed reform?
What motivation do CEOs of American companies and Small Business Owners across America have to make the claims that American health care burden is making them uncompetitive in the global market and that left unchecked will seriously damage the American economy? Do they all secretly hate The American Way? Or maybe there is no secret hidden agenda and problems do exist? Could be.
Your whole argment is a strawman, which I will summarize for you:
You believe that I am saying that the US healthcare system is perfect, and that those of other countries are inferior.
May I remind you that this entire thread is in reponse to the OP, which included a what I argue is a flawed study which attempted to "rank" national healthcare systems while ignoring significant factors, including but not limited to, a catastrophic medical debacle n the part of the "number one" country, and a series of extremely complex demographic and geographic variables which make any such ranking highly suspect and heavily skewed against the US?
Only a fool would argue that any status quo dealing with human services is perfect in every respect. But it would take an even bigger fool to argue that research which ignores important variables should provide the basis for a blanket condemnation of the medical system of the world's leading nation in medical innovation and research, or that contemporary political opinion does not play a role in informing the descriptive conclusions of practitioners who, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, hold prejudicial views of one of the nations studied.
Last edited by Yeledaf; 01-18-2008 at 01:09 PM..
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.
) 
