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.
The only thing we were number one at was amount per capita spent. Hell, Costa Rica outranked us. No wonder that is where Rush if running off to.
So how can all of those other countries rank so high and still be ecomonically strong? Look at France, top ranked single payer government system and the 5th highest GDP. Japan second highest GDP and 10th best healthcare system (government run no less).
Don't expect responses to this thread from those against UHC. Those against UHC prefer to hear horror (invented) stories about other nations.
The reason that America did not want the Status Quo to change is because greed reigns supreme.
The WHO rankings of 191 health systems worldwide placed the United States 37th, trailing countries like Malta and Oman and barely edging out dilapidated Cuba. Predictably, "obamaCare" champions are using the report in their battle cry for reviving the movement toward government-controlled medicine. 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.
I don't place a lot of value on the fact that they don't figure in the respective populations, either.
Dealing with a country of 300 million is not the same as 30 million. We have more illegal aliens skulking around that some of those countries have in legitimate population.
the funniest thing is they make their number one criterior being the 'longevity'
let's see do you think someone in europe, who walks to the market and work, and eats healthy is going to live longer or shorter, than some fat lazy american drinking his beer, and eating hamhocks........
has very little to do with the medical..more about LIFESTYLE
Last edited by workingclasshero; 03-30-2010 at 10:15 AM..
The only thing we were number one at was amount per capita spent. Hell, Costa Rica outranked us. No wonder that is where Rush if running off to.
So how can all of those other countries rank so high and still be ecomonically strong? Look at France, top ranked single payer government system and the 5th highest GDP. Japan second highest GDP and 10th best healthcare system (government run no less).
Why can they do it any we cant?
1) Then I would suggest you go to Costa Rica next time you need to see a doctor
2) The WHO is a liberal politically motivated organization that has no standing in the medical community.
3) Nobody can figure out what stats were used and how scientific their data really is
4) Because of that, nobody pays attention to this nonsense except for far left loons like the ones on this forum
[SIZE=5]
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
The only thing we were number one at was amount per capita spent. Hell, Costa Rica outranked us. No wonder that is where Rush if running off to.
So how can all of those other countries rank so high and still be ecomonically strong? Look at France, top ranked single payer government system and the 5th highest GDP. Japan second highest GDP and 10th best healthcare system (government run no less).
Why can they do it any we cant?
Wait, didn't Michael Moore tell us that Cuba was better than the U.S.? And isn't Denmark supposed to be the best place on the planet to live?
I think in some cases it IS fear of the unknown. I picked that up in the posts from someone I "know" from the Colorado forums who has a chronic disease. His present insurance is taking care of him very well. Naturally, someone in that position would be concerned about change, rightly so, I'd say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
I don't place a lot of value on the fact that they don't figure in the respective populations, either.
Dealing with a country of 300 million is not the same as 30 million. We have more illegal aliens skulking around that some of those countries have in legitimate population.
I have never quite understood this argument. Perhaps it does have some merit for some countries with very small populations, but the population of most western European countries, Japan, Australia is >10,000,000. There are fewer people paying into these systems, as well.
The shortening of life spans in the U.S. is due to fatal injuries (accidents and homicides), not health care. When fatal injuries are filtered out, Americans have the longest life span:
"...once fatal injuries are taken into account, U.S. "natural" life expectancy from birth ranks first among the richest nations of the world." Natural Life Expectancy in the United States
Which means the U.S. outranks Sweden and all other European countries in non-fatal injury life expectancy, even when disease and illnesses are included in the life expectancy calculations.
Also, our current health care system delivers the highest cancer survival rates:
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.
