Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack
|
really you are going to us the WHO 37 rank???
that
rank of
37 is not based on medical quality, diagnois or actual health care
The WHO rankings of 191 health systems worldwide placed the United States 37th....
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.
We're Number 37 in Health Care! | Cato Institute
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.
====================================
WHO's lifespan (
life expectancy) has been debunked a dozen times
the usa ranked 31. a LE of 79.8
the highest is japan at 83.8
the difference between us and France ....1.2 year
the difference between us and Canada.....1.2 year
the difference between us and Germany...a HALF a year
the difference between us and the United Kingdom...4 months
life expectance is more about genetics and
life style, than health care
we have a longer
life expectancy than them as a whole
the number one place for
life expectancy of asian women....USA
not to mention that
life expectancy is more about genetics and
LIFE STYLES (ie hamhocks, fried Twinkies, and fried chicken, mcdonalds, fatbacks certainly dont help)
most other places..they walk/bike
most other places don't have 4 tv's to a house
posting about
life expectancy. Means actually very little to medicine
difference between us and the highest is....4.0 years ...is that relatively low (79yrs-83.8yrs)
and the reason...
is not health care
its....
LIFE STYLE (especially EATING, and EXERCISE), and demographics (ethnics)
demographics, to include eating habits, GENES, TEEN PREGNANCIES, traffic, cancer, etc..ALL effect those numbers
yes I said traffic accidents....you think that the 2x amount of traffic accidents (of the world) is NOT going to lower the top level???
btw
asians have the HIGHEST
life span...and FEMALE ASIAN AMERICANS have the highest
life expectancy IN THE WORLD
its demographics
if you compared country "A" to country "B"...and said "A" has an average age of 38..and "B" has an average age of 51...which country do you think would be more PRODUCTIVE and HEALTHY
its the demographics
its like the
life expectancy list
the USa has an AVERAGE
life expectancy of 79.8 (number 30 something on the list)
but if you break it down further
in the USA, the asian american female has a
life expectancy of 87(the HIGHEST in the WORLD)(((higher than the 84 in the actual country of japan)))
..whites are around 84...Hispanics around 77...and blacks have a LOW
LIFE expectancy around 66m/68f....giving us the AVERAGE of 79.8.....if you took the (12-15% population) of blacks of that list..we would have one of the top three
life expectancies in the world....
demographic plays BIG ROLES
funny japan is higher than any of the European countries...in
life expectancy. And the 3rd lowest in infant mortality....connected...hmmmmm....certainly genetic
we also have the HIGHEST teen pregnancy ...which leads to low baby weight, and high infant mortality.....and the highest DEMOGRAPHIC with teen pregnancies...the african americans (especially southern AA)
life expectancy is not about health care.. but about healthy living.....too bad the liberhaddists dont understand that
=============================
infant mortality= every country is different on how the measure that. to include still births....and on top of that the USA has a high teen pregnancy rating, which leads to a higher
infant mortality ....... more about education than health care
infant mortality...which is NOT measured the same from country to country
...a) has ZERO to nill due with health care..has to due with teen pregos, and LIFE STYLES
...b) the US would have """""one of the lowest rates of age at first pregnancy""""""...especially since it has the HIGHEST RATE of TEEN prego's too...and New Mexico is has the highest rate of all 50 states
btw teen prego's...high risk, with usually lower baby weight.... according to webMD...high risk prego's are defined as..."""You are younger than 17 or older than 35.""""
....c) to
rank a group on
infant mortality, when many places dont 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' doesnt count..yet we DO county it
a girl in my sons school just had a kid(at 14)..the funniest (well maybe not funny) is that as she says, "now I can get welfare just like my mom"
============================
oh and the best one...does the country have a UHC of sometype....if they don't, worse ranking.
======================
12% of kidney specialists in the UK said they had refused to treat patients due to limited resources (same source).
One study showed that patients accepted for dialysis stacked up this way.....
65 patients per million population UK
98 patients per million population in Canada
212 patients per million population in the US
Source: Delay, Denial and Dilution: The Impact of NHS Rationing on Heart Disease and Cancer
IEA Health and Welfare Unit (London), David G. Green and Laura Casper.
Here's more proof:
In order not to trigger penalty payments, the KBV devised an Emergency Programme which would, in effect, ration drug prescribing for the rest of the year.
The Emergency Programme proposed five steps:
1. Waiting lists for prescription drugs and other prescription treatments (Heilmittel, which include physiotherapy, acupuncture etc.) except in life threatening or medically essential circumstances
2. Postponement of innovative therapy to the following budget year
3. Radical switching of prescriptions from brand to the cheapest generic
4. Prior authorisation of expensive therapies
5. In the event of budget being exceeded, ‘emergency prescriptions’ to be issued temporarily, for which patients would have to pay out-of pocket and personally claim reimbursement (in Germany, unlike France, patients pay only user charges out of pocket)
Source: Why Ration Healthcare? Page 86
If healthcare costs less in Germany, then why does Germany have to ration?
Healthcare costs less, but we can't give you the medication you need, because we can't afford to buy it.
yes we spend a lot on healthcare...but we also have the BEST RECORDS of health.........
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.
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.
