Left wing thugs now attacking Republican politicians at Town Halls, it will get worse.

My advice to anyone considering violence against a Republican: It's not worth sacrificing your well being or your life for one of those pieces of shit. Continue to live well in spite of them. The best revenge.
 
And here we have more democrat/left wing incitement to violence against their poltical opponents.....

Whitworth Professor: Would Killing GOP Congressman Who Voted For Trumpcare Be 'Self-Defense'?


You ran away shoog, why?



ch1_20140317_1.png

U.S. Manufacturing: Output vs. Jobs Since 1975


Oh but wait, Don's gonna bring manufacturing back:
manufacturing-for-web-PNG26.png

U.S. Manufacturing: Output vs. Jobs Since 1975

Hmmm, wait, that's weird, "jobs" comes right after "Jesus" in america. What gives?
Screen%20Shot%202013-03-08%20at%2011.36.19%20AM.png

Productivity/income: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Congressional Budget Office(PDF), Economic Policy Institute, Census Bureau (Excel)



But we're exceptional as hell, right?
8-640.jpg

Benefits maps: McGill Institute for Health and Social Policy



We're globally competitive, we are globally competitive, we are globally competitive, we are globally competitive, we are globally competitive, we are globally competitive,.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2aguy:


Those social welfare countries.......get all those benefits because we protect them from Russia and China....otherwise they would actually have to use their own money for their own airforce, navy and army.....and even with all that free money that they get to spend on their welfare programs....their countries are running out of money....their national healthcare is collapsing......


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fenton Lum:


I reckon the american taxpaying public is really fucking stupid to continue supporting and cooperating with a power structure and economic system that leverages them as commodities in that manner. Be really nice if ya could vote your way outta that, but we all know that’s utterly impossible within this political system seeing as how it’s ultimately controlled by the donor class, which is why the citizenry bails out Wall Street across both “conservative” and “liberal” administrations; because the donor class has that covered either way, you’ll note Goldman Sachs is always in the white house “either” way. And that’s who decides what your health”care” will be. For most americans at this point it comes through the control of an employer. It is now legal for an employer to require an employee’s blood for insurance coverage within the provider’s plan; otherwise a financial penalty is attached to the premium price. Legislation is afoot that would allow an employer the same situational access to an employee’s genetic profile/material; any downstream testing or processing the new “owner” desires, not boxed in legally, in both cases. And really now, “legally” in america is relative and we all know it. ISP’s can sell your browsing history, your blood panel and genetic profile are much more “interesting” than your browsing history; well, most of ya’s. Sold on the market. Handed off to the employer’s provider for a plan discount. Searched by every insurance company who ever considers covering you again. Premiums based upon your genetics, because as we know, the bit with insurance is – collect the premiums and invest, cover as little as possible, begrudgingly, our first allegiance is to shareholders and Wall Street. We’ll see what’s left.

But "their" healthcare you say?

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

U.S. Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries


Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least


Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
MMS: Error


Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf


Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

clip_image002.gif


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072


US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...-50th-out-of-55-countries-for-efficiency.html


he U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
 
There is no excuse for violence or denying another person their right to speech based on whatever their political views are. With the exception of law enforcement and the judicial system in the performance of their duties.
 
There is no excuse for violence or denying another person their right to speech based on whatever their political views are. With the exception of law enforcement and the judicial system in the performance of their duties.
Pffffffffffffffft, we have a long and rich history otherwise.
 
There is no excuse for violence or denying another person their right to speech based on whatever their political views are. With the exception of law enforcement and the judicial system in the performance of their duties.
Pffffffffffffffft, we have a long and rich history otherwise.

I didn't say it hasn't happened before and no doubt will again, what I did say was there's no excuse for it. Which these days is primarily many of those on the Left who seem to have little or no respect for the law or other people's rights.
 
Democrats want to make these attacks as spontaneous and done by a frustrated public.

Sort of like a spontaneous attack because of a movie.
 
Let them keep this stupid shit up. They are not gaining any new voters with this stuff. They are preaching to the choir and likely losing moderates. It will be bad for them come the next elections.
 
There is no excuse for violence or denying another person their right to speech based on whatever their political views are. With the exception of law enforcement and the judicial system in the performance of their duties.
Pffffffffffffffft, we have a long and rich history otherwise.

I didn't say it hasn't happened before and no doubt will again, what I did say was there's no excuse for it. Which these days is primarily many of those on the Left who seem to have little or no respect for the law or other people's rights.

Oh, so all you have is parisanshit? We've always been able to make excuses for violence, we got the land mass via enthinc cleansing for christ's sake.
 
My advice to anyone considering violence against a Republican: It's not worth sacrificing your well being or your life for one of those pieces of shit. Continue to live well in spite of them. The best revenge.


the democrats that are active in the party are filled with hate, violence and racism......you see it in all of their core groups and this nut...
 
Democrats want to make these attacks as spontaneous and done by a frustrated public.

Sort of like a spontaneous attack because of a movie.
Your donor class operates behind the corporate state media's orchestrated chaos, anxiety and confusion love, the partisanshit is for you to busy yourself with.
 
My advice to anyone considering violence against a Republican: It's not worth sacrificing your well being or your life for one of those pieces of shit. Continue to live well in spite of them. The best revenge.


the democrats that are active in the party are filled with hate, violence and racism......you see it in all of their core groups and this nut...

They love their guns just like we all do.
 
And here we have more democrat/left wing incitement to violence against their poltical opponents.....

Whitworth Professor: Would Killing GOP Congressman Who Voted For Trumpcare Be 'Self-Defense'?


You ran away shoog, why?



ch1_20140317_1.png

U.S. Manufacturing: Output vs. Jobs Since 1975


Oh but wait, Don's gonna bring manufacturing back:
manufacturing-for-web-PNG26.png

U.S. Manufacturing: Output vs. Jobs Since 1975

Hmmm, wait, that's weird, "jobs" comes right after "Jesus" in america. What gives?
Screen%20Shot%202013-03-08%20at%2011.36.19%20AM.png

Productivity/income: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Congressional Budget Office(PDF), Economic Policy Institute, Census Bureau (Excel)



But we're exceptional as hell, right?
8-640.jpg

Benefits maps: McGill Institute for Health and Social Policy



We're globally competitive, we are globally competitive, we are globally competitive, we are globally competitive, we are globally competitive, we are globally competitive,.....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2aguy:


Those social welfare countries.......get all those benefits because we protect them from Russia and China....otherwise they would actually have to use their own money for their own airforce, navy and army.....and even with all that free money that they get to spend on their welfare programs....their countries are running out of money....their national healthcare is collapsing......


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fenton Lum:


I reckon the american taxpaying public is really fucking stupid to continue supporting and cooperating with a power structure and economic system that leverages them as commodities in that manner. Be really nice if ya could vote your way outta that, but we all know that’s utterly impossible within this political system seeing as how it’s ultimately controlled by the donor class, which is why the citizenry bails out Wall Street across both “conservative” and “liberal” administrations; because the donor class has that covered either way, you’ll note Goldman Sachs is always in the white house “either” way. And that’s who decides what your health”care” will be. For most americans at this point it comes through the control of an employer. It is now legal for an employer to require an employee’s blood for insurance coverage within the provider’s plan; otherwise a financial penalty is attached to the premium price. Legislation is afoot that would allow an employer the same situational access to an employee’s genetic profile/material; any downstream testing or processing the new “owner” desires, not boxed in legally, in both cases. And really now, “legally” in america is relative and we all know it. ISP’s can sell your browsing history, your blood panel and genetic profile are much more “interesting” than your browsing history; well, most of ya’s. Sold on the market. Handed off to the employer’s provider for a plan discount. Searched by every insurance company who ever considers covering you again. Premiums based upon your genetics, because as we know, the bit with insurance is – collect the premiums and invest, cover as little as possible, begrudgingly, our first allegiance is to shareholders and Wall Street. We’ll see what’s left.

But "their" healthcare you say?

New York, N.Y., October 8, 2015 — The U.S. spent more per person on health care than 12 other high-income nations in 2013, while seeing the lowest life expectancy and some of the worst health outcomes among this group, according to a Commonwealth Fund report out today. The analysis shows that in the U.S., which spent an average of $9,086 per person annually, life expectancy was 78.8 years. Switzerland, the second-highest-spending country, spent $6,325 per person and had a life expectancy of 82.9 years. Mortality rates for cancer were among the lowest in the U.S., but rates of chronic conditions, obesity, and infant mortality were higher than those abroad.

“Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits,” said Commonwealth Fund President David Blumenthal, M.D. “We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity.”

U.S. Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries

U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries


Major Findings
· Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into four categories: effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient-centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the U.S. fares best on provision and receipt of preventive and patient-centered care. While there has been some improvement in recent years, lower scores on safe and coordinated care pull the overall U.S. quality score down. Continued adoption of health information technology should enhance the ability of U.S. physicians to identify, monitor, and coordinate care for their patients, particularly those with chronic conditions.

· Access: Not surprisingly—given the absence of universal coverage—people in the U.S. go without needed health care because of cost more often than people do in the other countries. Americans were the most likely to say they had access problems related to cost. Patients in the U.S. have rapid access to specialized health care services; however, they are less likely to report rapid access to primary care than people in leading countries in the study. In other countries, like Canada, patients have little to no financial burden, but experience wait times for such specialized services. There is a frequent misperception that trade-offs between universal coverage and timely access to specialized services are inevitable; however, the Netherlands, U.K., and Germany provide universal coverage with low out-of-pocket costs while maintaining quick access to specialty services.

· Efficiency: On indicators of efficiency, the U.S. ranks last among the 11 countries, with the U.K. and Sweden ranking first and second, respectively. The U.S. has poor performance on measures of national health expenditures and administrative costs as well as on measures of administrative hassles, avoidable emergency room use, and duplicative medical testing. Sicker survey respondents in the U.K. and France are less likely to visit the emergency room for a condition that could have been treated by a regular doctor, had one been available.

· Equity: The U.S. ranks a clear last on measures of equity. Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick; not getting a recommended test, treatment, or follow-up care; or not filling a prescription or skipping doses when needed because of costs. On each of these indicators, one-third or more lower-income adults in the U.S. said they went without needed care because of costs in the past year.

· Healthy lives: The U.S. ranks last overall with poor scores on all three indicators of healthy lives—mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60. The U.S. and U.K. had much higher death rates in 2007 from conditions amenable to medical care than some of the other countries, e.g., rates 25 percent to 50 percent higher than Australia and Sweden. Overall, France, Sweden, and Switzerland rank highest on healthy lives.

Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally


No other advanced country even comes close to the United States in annual spending on health care, but plenty of those other countries see much better outcomes in their citizens' actual health overall.

A new Commonwealth Fund report released Thursday underscored that point — yet again — with an analysis that ranks 13 high-income nations on their overall health spending, use of medical services, prices and health outcomes.

The study data, which is from 2013, predates the full implementation of Obamacare, which took place in 2014. Obamacare is designed to increase health coverage for Americans and stem the rise in health-care costs.

The findings indicate that despite spending well in excess of the rate of any other of those countries in 2013, the United States achieved worse outcomes when it comes to rates of chronic conditions, obesity and infant mortality.

One rare bright spot for the U.S., however, is that its mortality rate for cancer is among the lowest out of the 13 countries, and that cancer rates fell faster between 1995 and 2007 than in other countries.

"Time and again, we see evidence that the amount of money we spend on health care in this country is not gaining us comparable health benefits," said Dr. David Blumenthal, president of the Commonwealth Fund. "We have to look at the root causes of this disconnect and invest our health-care dollars in ways that will allow us to live longer while enjoying better health and greater productivity."

US health care: Spending a lot, getting the least


Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
MMS: Error


Health Care Outcomes in States Influenced by Coverage, Disparities
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...-in-states-influenced-by-coverage-disparities


One explanation for the health disadvantage of the United States relative to other high-income countries might be deficiencies in health services. Although the United States is renowned for its leadership in biomedical research, its cutting-edge medical technology, and its hospitals and specialists, problems with ensuring Americans’ access to the system and providing quality care have been a long-standing concern of policy makers and the public (Berwick et al., 2008; Brook, 2011b; Fineberg, 2012). Higher mortality rates from diseases, and even from transportation-related injuries and homicides, may be traceable in part to failings in the health care system.

The United States stands out from many other countries in not offering universal health insurance coverage. In 2010, 50 million people (16 percent of the U.S. population) were uninsured (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2011). Access to health care services, particularly in rural and frontier communities or disadvantaged urban centers, is often limited. The United States has a relatively weak foundation for primary care and a shortage of family physicians (American Academy of Family Physicians, 2009; Grumbach et al., 2009; Macinko et al., 2007; Sandy et al., 2009). Many Americans rely on emergency departments for acute, chronic, and even preventive care (Institute of Medicine, 2007a; Schoen et al., 2009b, 2011). Cost sharing is common in the United States, and high out-of-pocket expenses make health care services, pharmaceuticals, and medical supplies increasingly unaffordable (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011; Karaca-Mandic et al., 2012). In 2011, one-third of American households reported problems paying medical bills (Cohen et al., 2012), a problem that seems to have worsened in recent years (Himmelstein et al., 2009). Health insurance premiums are consuming an increasing proportion of U.S. household income (Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance System, 2011).

Public Health and Medical Care Systems - U.S. Health in International Perspective - NCBI Bookshelf


Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

A report released Monday by a respected think tank ranks the United States dead last in the quality of its health-care system when compared with 10 other western, industrialized nations, the same spot it occupied in four previous studies by the same organization. Not only did the U.S. fail to move up between 2004 and 2014 -- as other nations did with concerted effort and significant reforms -- it also has maintained this dubious distinction while spending far more per capita ($8,508) on health care than Norway ($5,669), which has the second most expensive system.

"Although the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has the highest proportion of specialist physicians, survey findings indicate that from the patients’ perspective, and based on outcome indicators, the performance of American health care is severely lacking," the Commonwealth Fund, a New York-based foundation that promotes improved health care, concluded in its extensive analysis. The charts in this post are from the report.

clip_image002.gif


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...care-system-in-survey/?utm_term=.3bea55276072


US healthcare system ranks 50th out of 55 countries for efficiency
http://www.beckershospitalreview.co...-50th-out-of-55-countries-for-efficiency.html


he U.S. healthcare system notched another dubious honor in a new comparison of its quality to the systems of 10 other developed countries: its rank was dead last.

The new study by the Commonwealth Fund ranks the U.S. against seven wealthy European countries and Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It's a follow-up of previous surveys published in 2010, 2007, 2006 and 2004, in all of which the U.S. also ranked last.

Although the U.S. ranked in the middle of the pack on measures of effectiveness, safety and coordination of care, it ranked dead last on access and cost, by a sufficient margin to rank dead last overall. The breakdowns are in the chart above.

Conservative pundits hastened to explain away these results after the report was published. See Aaron Carroll for a gloss on the "zombie arguments" put forth against the clear evidence that the U.S. system falls short.

The U.S. healthcare system: worst in the developed world

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World


Run away....? I have a life....and you only get so much time....but while I am gone....if the social welfare countries had to spend enough money to actually have a military capable of defending them....they couldn't afford the luxuries we provide them.......cases in point......and they still can't run their systems..they are running out of other people's money....asswipe.

Britain....

NHS problems 'at their worst since 1990s' - BBC News


Services in the NHS in England are deteriorating in a way not seen since the early 1990s, according to a leading health think tank.

The King's Fund review said waiting times for A&E, cancer care and routine operations had all started getting worse, while deficits were growing.

It said such drops in performance had not been seen for 20 years.

But the think tank acknowledged the NHS had done as well as could be expected, given the financial climate.

Professor John Appleby, chief economist at the King's Fund, which specialises in health care policy, said: "The next government will inherit a health service that has run out of money and is operating at the very edge of its limits.

================



Iceland...


Iceland's Universal Healthcare (Still) On Thin Ice - The Reykjavik Grapevine

One year ago, Iceland’s lauded universal healthcare system seemed to be teetering off the edge. Doctors’ wages had stagnated after the economic crash, and following a bout of failed negotiations, they went on strike for the first time ever. While they coordinated their actions to avoid endangering patients’ lives, the doctors’ message was clear: if demands were not met, they would seek employment elsewhere.

Coupled with years of tough austerity measures, faltering morale, and an infrastructure in dire disrepair, there was not much slack to give. In an in-depth analysis, we at the Grapevine tried to figure out what, exactly, was going on, and where we were headed.
=========

New Zealand...


WHO | New Zealand cuts health spending to control costs
New Zealand cuts health spending to control costs

New Zealand’s health-care system is undergoing a series of cutbacks to reduce costs, but critics are concerned that the health of people on low incomes and in some population groups may suffer. Rebecca Lancashire reports in our series on health financing.
When Robyn Pope was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2008 she was told that she would have to wait two months for a mastectomy if she wanted breast reconstruction as part of her treatment in the public health system. “Two months may not seem like a long time,” says Pope, a mother of three, who lives on the Kapiti Coast of New Zealand, “but a day lived knowing that you have cancer in your body is like an eternity”.

The underlying reason for the delay was a familiar one – funding. Like other countries offering universal health care, New Zealand struggles to meet the steadily growing demand for a full range of high-quality health services offered largely for free to everyone, while remaining cost efficient. In the past eight years, New Zealand’s total health expenditure has doubled to 3.6 billion New Zealand dollars (NZ$) (US$ 10 billion). In the face of economic slow down, the government is calling for reform to rein in this expenditure.

===========


Sweden


'Sweden's healthcare is an embarrassment'



Swedish was once a health care model for the world. But that is hardly the case anymore.

This is not primarily due to the fact Sweden has become worse - rather it is the case that other countries have improved faster.

That Sweden no longer keeps up with those countries is largely due to its inability to reduce its patient waiting times, which are some of the worst in Europe, as the latest edition of the Euro Health Consumer Index (EHCI) revealed in Brussels on Monday.

The 2014 EHCI also confirms other big problems within Swedish healthcare.
===============

France....

France's Health-Care System Is Going Broke

Yet France’s looming recession and a steady increase in chronic diseases including diabetes threaten to change that, says Willy Hodin, who heads Groupe PHR, an umbrella organization for 2,200 French pharmacies. The health system exceeds its budget by billions of euros each year, and in the face of rising costs, taxpayer-funded benefits such as spa treatments, which the French have long justified as preventive care, now look more like expendable luxuries.
“Reform is needed fast,” Hodin says. “The most optimistic believe this system can survive another five to six years. The less optimistic don’t think it will last more than three.”
===========


Finland...

Why is Finland’s healthcare system failing my family? | Ed Dutton

Finland’s health service has been in a parlous state for decades and it is getting worse.
According to an OECD report published in 2013, the Finnish health system is chronically underfunded. The Nordic nation of five million people spent only 7% of GDP on its public health system in 2012, compared with 8% in the UK. In 2012, the report found, 80% of the Finnish population had to wait more than two weeks to see a GP. Finland’s high taxes go on education and daycare.
Finland has more doctors per capita than the UK but, at the level of primary care, a far higher proportion of these are private than is the case in Britain. And the Finnish equivalent of the NHS is far from free at the point of use.
A GP appointment costs €16.10 (£12.52), though you pay for only the first three visits in a given year. A hospital consultation costs about €38, and you pay for each night that you spend in hospital, up to a maximum of €679. And once you get to the chemist, there is no flat fee; no belief that you shouldn’t be financially penalised for the nature of the medicine you require.
The service is not national, but municipal, meaning that poorer areas of the country tend to have a bad health service and limited access even to private GPs, who set up practices in more affluent areas.

---------

Canada....

If Universal Health Care Is The Goal, Don't Copy Canada

Amongst industrialized countries -- members of the OECD -- with universal health care, Canada has the second most expensive health care system as a share of the economy after adjusting for age. This is not necessarily a problem, however, depending on the value received for such spending. As countries become richer, citizens may choose to allocate a larger portion of their income to health care. However, such expenditures are a problem when they are not matched by value.
The most visible manifestation of Canada’s failing health care system are wait times for health care services. In 2013, Canadians, on average, faced a four and a half month wait for medically necessary treatment after referral by a general practitioner. This wait time is almost twice as long as it was in 1993 when national wait times were first measured.
--------

Long wait times in Canada have also been observed for basic diagnostic imaging technologies that Americans take for granted, which are crucial for determining the severity of a patient’s condition. In 2013, the average wait time for an MRI was over two months, while Canadians needing a CT scan waited for almost a month.

These wait times are not simply “minor inconveniences.” Patients experience physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, and lost economic productivity while waiting for treatment. One recent estimate (2013) found that the value of time lost due to medical wait times in Canada amounted to approximately $1,200 per patient.

There is also considerable evidence indicating that excessive wait times lead to poorer health outcomes and in some cases, death. Dr. Brian Day, former head of the Canadian Medical Association recently noted that “[d]elayed care often transforms an acute and potentially reversible illness or injury into a chronic, irreversible condition that involves permanent disability.”

And more on Canada...


The Ugly Truth About Canadian Health Care

Mountain-bike enthusiast Suzanne Aucoin had to fight more than her Stage IV colon cancer. Her doctor suggested Erbitux—a proven cancer drug that targets cancer cells exclusively, unlike conventional chemotherapies that more crudely kill all fast-growing cells in the body—and Aucoin went to a clinic to begin treatment. But if Erbitux offered hope, Aucoin’s insurance didn’t: she received one inscrutable form letter after another, rejecting her claim for reimbursement. Yet another example of the callous hand of managed care, depriving someone of needed medical help, right? Guess again. Erbitux is standard treatment, covered by insurance companies—in the United States. Aucoin lives in Ontario, Canada.

When Aucoin appealed to an official ombudsman, the Ontario government claimed that her treatment was unproven and that she had gone to an unaccredited clinic. But the FDA in the U.S. had approved Erbitux, and her clinic was a cancer center affiliated with a prominent Catholic hospital in Buffalo. This January, the ombudsman ruled in Aucoin’s favor, awarding her the cost of treatment. She represents a dramatic new trend in Canadian health-care advocacy: finding the treatment you need in another country, and then fighting Canadian bureaucrats (and often suing) to get them to pick up the tab.

And the truth.......that Canadians don't see until it is too late.....

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.
Norway.....
Government Health Care Horror Stories from Norway

I'll admit this: if, like me, you're a self-employed person with a marginal income, the Norwegian system is, in many ways, a boon – as long as you're careful not to get anything much more serious than a cold or flu.

Doctors' visits are cheap; hospitalization is free. But you get what you pay for. There are excellent doctors in Norway – but there are also mediocrities and outright incompetents who in the U.S. would have been stripped of their licenses long ago. The fact is that while the ubiquity of frivolous malpractice lawsuits in the U.S. has been a disgrace, the inability of Norwegians to sue doctors or hospitals even in the most egregious of circumstances is even more of a disgrace.

Physicians who in the U.S. would be dragged into court are, under the Norwegian system, reported to a local board consisting of their own colleagues – who are also, not infrequently, their longtime friends.

(The government health system's own website puts it this way: if you suspect malpractice, you have the right to “ask the Norwegian Board of Health Supervision in your county to evaluate” your claims.)

As a result, doctors who should be forcibly retired, if not incarcerated, end up with a slap on the wrist. When patients are awarded financial damages, the sums – paid by the state, not the doctor – are insultingly small.
------------

Take the case of Peter Franks, whose doctor sent him home twice despite a tennis-ball-sized lump in his chest that was oozing blood and pus – and that turned out to be a cancer that was diagnosed too late to save his life. Apropos of Franks's case, a jurist who specializes in patients' rights lamented that the Norwegian health-care system responds to sky-high malpractice figures “with a shrug,” and the dying Franks himself pronounced last year that “the responsibility for malpractice has been pulverized in Norway,” saying that “if I could have sued the doctor, I would have. Other doctors would have read about the lawsuit in the newspaper. Then they would have taken greater care to avoid making such a mistake themselves. But doctors in Norway don't have to take responsibility for their mistakes. The state does it.” After a three-year legal struggle, Franks was awarded 2.7 million kroner by the Norwegian government – about half a million dollars.

Another aspect of Norway's guild-like health-care system is that although the country suffers from a severe deficit of doctors, nurses, and midwives, the medical establishment makes it next to impossible for highly qualified foreign members of these professions to get certified to practice in Norway. The daughter of a friend of mine got a nursing degree at the University of North Dakota in 2009 but, as reported last Friday by NRK, is working in Seattle because the Norwegian authorities in charge of these matters – who have refused to be interviewed on this subject by NRK – have stubbornly denied her a license. Why? My guess is that the answer has a lot to do with three things: competence, competition, and control. If there were a surplus of doctors and nurses instead of a shortage, the good ones would drive out the bad. Plainly, such a situation must be avoided at all costs – including the cost of human lives.

Then there's the waiting lists. At the beginning of 2012, over 281,000 patients in Norway, out of a population of five million, were awaiting treatment for some medical problem or other. Bureaucratic absurdities run rampant, as exemplified by thisAftenposten story from earlier this year:

Japan....

Medical services in Tokyo area in danger of collapsing | The Japan Times

Medical services in the Tokyo metropolitan area are facing a serious danger of collapse as hospitals affiliated with private medical universities and private universities’ medical schools, the key players in the region’s medical services, are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.

These institutions, long beset by higher labor costs than in other parts of the country, have been hit hard by the increase in the consumption tax from 5 percent to 8 percent in April last year. While they now have to pay higher taxes when purchasing pharmaceuticals and medical equipment, they cannot pass that incremental cost on to patients or health insurance associations. This is because medical services are exempt from the consumption tax, so patients and health insurance associations are not required to pay it.



Not all smiles



Like other service industries in Japan, there are cumbersome rules, too many small players and few incentives to improve. Doctors are too few—one-third less than the rich-world average, relative to the population—because of state quotas. Shortages of doctors are severe in rural areas and in certain specialities, such as surgery, paediatrics and obstetrics. The latter two shortages are blamed on the country's low birth rate, but practitioners say that they really arise because income is partly determined by numbers of tests and drugs prescribed, and there are fewer of these for children and pregnant women. Doctors are worked to the bone for relatively low pay (around $125,000 a year at mid-career). One doctor in his 30s says he works more than 100 hours a week. “How can I find time to do research? Write an article? Check back on patients?” he asks.


----On the positive side, patients can nearly always see a doctor within a day. But they must often wait hours for a three-minute consultation. Complicated cases get too little attention. The Japanese are only a quarter as likely as the Americans or French to suffer a heart attack, but twice as likely to die if they do.

Some doctors see as many as 100 patients a day. Because their salaries are low, they tend to overprescribe tests and drugs. (Clinics often own their own pharmacies.) They also earn money, hotel-like, by keeping patients in bed. Simple surgery that in the West would involve no overnight stay, such as a hernia operation, entails a five-day hospital stay in Japan.

Emergency care is often poor. In lesser cities it is not uncommon for ambulances to cruise the streets calling a succession of emergency rooms to find one that can cram in a patient. In a few cases people have died because of this. One reason for a shortage of emergency care is an abundance of small clinics instead of big hospitals. Doctors prefer them because they can work less and earn more.
 
Let them keep this stupid shit up. They are not gaining any new voters with this stuff. They are preaching to the choir and likely losing moderates. It will be bad for them come the next elections.


And your next election will purge the white house of Goldman Sachs? You poor thing.
 
There is no excuse for violence or denying another person their right to speech based on whatever their political views are. With the exception of law enforcement and the judicial system in the performance of their duties.
Pffffffffffffffft, we have a long and rich history otherwise.

I didn't say it hasn't happened before and no doubt will again, what I did say was there's no excuse for it. Which these days is primarily many of those on the Left who seem to have little or no respect for the law or other people's rights.

Oh, so all you have is parisanshit? We've always been able to make excuses for violence, we got the land mass via enthinc cleansing for christ's sake.


no asswipe....we got the land mass because the original owners were backward and primitive and didn't have guns......what happened here was what happened all over the world......and they were busy killing, and eating, each other over here long before the Europeans came around...
 

Forum List

Back
Top