McCain States that:

rayboyusmc

Senior Member
Jan 2, 2008
4,015
341
48
Florida
"I'm not going to do like the Europeans have and have expensive health care systems that are neither efficient or, frankly, the quality we have here in America," he said.

That is total crap. We ain't that good at all. Even if you dispute the methodlolgy, we ain't anywhere near the top.


Health care in the United States is provided by many separate legal entities. The U.S. spends more on health care, both as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) and on a per-capita basis, than any other nation in the world.[1] Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 16% of GDP.[2][3] The health share of GDP is expected to continue its historical upward trend, reaching 19.5 percent of GDP by 2017.[2] In 2007, the U.S. spent a projected $2.26 trillion on health care, or $7,439 per person.[4]

According to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not have a universal health care system.[5] In the United States, around 84% of citizens have some form of health insurance; either through their employer (60%), purchased individually (9%), or provided by government programs (27%; there is some overlap in these figures).[6] Certain publicly-funded health care programs help to provide for the elderly, disabled, children, veterans, and the poor, and federal law mandates public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. U.S. government programs accounted for over 45% of health care expenditures, making the U.S. government the largest insurer in the nation. Per capita spending on health care by the U.S. government placed it among the top ten highest spenders among United Nations member countries in 2004.[7]

Americans without health insurance coverage at some time during 2006 totaled about 16% of the population, or 47 million people.[6] Health insurance costs are rising faster than wages or inflation, and "medical causes" were cited by about half of bankruptcy filers in the United States in 2001.[8]

The debate about U.S. health care concerns questions of access, efficiency, and quality purchased by the high sums spent. The World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 ranked the U.S. health care system first in both responsiveness and expenditure, but 37th in overall performance and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[9][10] The WHO study has been criticized both for its methodology and for a lack of correlation with user satisfaction ratings.[11][12] The CIA World Factbook ranked the United States 41st in the world for lowest infant mortality rate[13] and 45th for highest total life expectancy.[14] A recent study found that between 1997 and 2003, preventable deaths declined more slowly in the United States than in 18 other industrialized nations.[15] On the other hand, the National Health Interview Survey, released annually by the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for Health Statistics reported that approximately 66% of survey respondents said they were in "excellent" or "very good" health in 2006.[16]

Wikipedia

If I can find the link, I will post it that shows how we rate overall in such areas as: infant mortality, heart disease, etc.
 
Call me crazy, but I'd much rather find myself in need of medical attention here in the good ole USA than anywhere else in the world. :eusa_whistle:
 
Me too.

If you want a preview about how wonderful nationalized health care will be, talk to somebody who is dependent upon the state for coverage now.
 
Me too.

If you want a preview about how wonderful nationalized health care will be, talk to somebody who is dependent upon the state for coverage now.

Talk to the Candians about how their universal healthcare is performing.:rofl:
 
Fine, but neither one of you is right.

U.S. has second worst newborn death rate in modern world, report says

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.html

It is an urban legend that we have the best healthcare. I worked in the field for 14 years. It ain't so.

Let me see if I can find some more erroneous facts.

Did you know that Cuban males outlive US males?

Candians have longer wait times and don't benefit alot of times from the latest in technology. Yes Candians enjoy a longer lifespan but is it due to access to healthcare or lifestyle choices? I'm betting on lifestyle choices.

America is home to the most obese people in the world. According to the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), obesity in adults has increased by 60% within the past twenty years and obesity in children has tripled in the past thirty years. A staggering 33% of American adults are obese and obesity-related deaths have climbed to more than 300,000 a year, second only to tobacco-related deaths.
http://www.downtoearth.org/articles/obesity_america.htm
 
Candians have longer wait times and don't benefit alot of times from the latest in technology. Yes Candians enjoy a longer lifespan but is it due to access to healthcare or lifestyle choices? I'm betting on lifestyle choices.

America is home to the most obese people in the world. According to the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), obesity in adults has increased by 60% within the past twenty years and obesity in children has tripled in the past thirty years. A staggering 33% of American adults are obese and obesity-related deaths have climbed to more than 300,000 a year, second only to tobacco-related deaths.
http://www.downtoearth.org/articles/obesity_america.htm


Wrong again. It's because Canadians have access to "free" pre-care, so they do not develop preventable diseases at the rate Americans do. That saves billions in drugs and treatments that would have otherwise severely impacted the Canadian health budget.

Surely then it comes as no surprise that a team of academics from Harvard published a peer-reviewed study that showed the Canadian government spends less on health care per person than in the United States, covers more people than the US;and also has lower operating costs than the U.S., even though Canadians maintain a national health system.
 
Hey, aren't you the guy lambasting others for speculating in the Syria-Korean nukes thread? :eusa_whistle:

Please explain what that topic, has to do with this one?

This is not speculation. My facts come from a prestigious study authored by the leading academics in the Health policy field. The study is found in the New England Journal of Medicine.
 
The topics have nothing to do with each other.

Fortunately for me, my point has nothing specifically to do with either topic. My point is your inconsistent application of a debate standard.

And what would that "inconsistent" application of a debate standard be?
 
This is not speculation. My facts come from a prestigious study authored by the leading academics in the Health policy field. The study is found in the New England Journal of Medicine.

It's not a fact that any observed differences are specifically the result of access to free pre-care, as you boldly assert. It may be a reasonably sound conclusion. But then so is the veracity of Israel's claims about Syria's nukes.

Consistency is all I'm after.
 
It's not a fact that any observed differences are specifically the result of access to free pre-care, as you boldly assert. It may be a reasonably sound conclusion. But then so is the veracity of Israel's claims about Syria's nukes.

Consistency is all I'm after.

Wrong again and your comparison remains ridiculous.

Like I said my conclusions are derived from a scholarly peer-reviewed scholarly study conducted by the leading academics in the field and based on sound but solid methodology vetted by the proper academic bodies.

That is nothing - I repeat - nothing like evidence submitted to the court of public opinion (and not the IAEA as is protocol) by the internal security apparatus of a nation state as justification for violating another nation's borders.

You're confusing academics with politics.
 
The bottom line is that there are facts, and there is speculation. You reviled posters for sound speculation on one topic, and then trumpet it when it's your own in another. There is a word for that, it's called...wait for it...


...hypocrisy.
 
The bottom line is that there are facts, and there is speculation. You reviled posters for sound speculation on one topic, and then trumpet it when it's your own in another. There is a word for that, it's called...wait for it...


...hypocrisy.

No my claim is not "speculation."

It is a fact from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

It is not hypocrisy at all, not in the least.

How anyone can confuse the facts derived from a scholarly peer-reviewed medical study; with a political justification for violation of a nations borders is beyond me.
 
No it is not "speculation."

It is a fact from a peer-reviewed scholarly journal published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

No it isn't. It is a conclusion based on observed evidence. Do you not understand the difference?

Look, it may be a subtle point I'm making here but I think it's worthwhile. Had you merely disagreed with the speculation of others in the Israel thread, then no harm no foul. But you attacked the practice of speculation itself.
 
There was an interesting report on Japan's health care on NPR a few weeks ago, it seems to be very low cost to all but the doctors don't make much money. The doctors they interviewed never said if they were unhappy with the situation or not, nor was it said what the quality of care was...does anyone know anything about Japanese health care?
 

Forum List

Back
Top