Socialized medicine does not work...

[LogikAndReazon]

The military budget averages around 4% of gdp.
Whats medicare & medicaid ????? Lol

"Single Payer" .... No matter the Cost !!!!!!!!

 

[danielpalos]

The French system works fine.

Only the right wing is "unPatriotic" enough, to claim "Yankee forms of ingenuity" won't save the day.

 

[NCC1701]

Socialized medicine does not work...

If so, how do you explain the "happiest countries" in the world having socialized medicine?

http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/HR-V1_web.pdf

how do you explain grown adults thinking that they can present this crap as if it means something?

happiness is not an empirical variable, there are no error bars, and the US is 2.6% away from socialist paradise Sweden, which is more than that away from Denmark. The US is not one place, nor one homogeneous people, it is a vast nation that varies greatly, it is supremely niave to think you can sum it all up with one number for a subjective emotion. Have you always been this stupid? or did it happen when you started believing the liberal religion?

What "liberal religion" ? Have you always been this stupid with your anger issues?

I presented ONE study that associates ONE positive variable to countries that happen to have socialized medicine.
Socialized medicine can work; it obviously depends on the details of its implementation along with other variables.
Get a grip ...

your liberal religion, the one that makes you think you can post the crap you did as if it means anything

it is not a study, it is a piece of religious propaganda... 'happiness index'? get a fucking brain

the lack of error bars alone tells a thinking person that the article is trash, your liberal church would never teach such a thing however

 

[NCC1701]

The military budget averages around 4% of gdp.
Whats medicare & medicaid ????? Lol

"Single Payer" .... No matter the Cost !!!!!!!!

yeah medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP plus ACA are about 25% of the federal budget and there are actually idiots right here in this forum who will say we don't have socialized medical care

 

[PK1]

Socialized medicine does not work...

If so, how do you explain the "happiest countries" in the world having socialized medicine?

http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/HR-V1_web.pdf

how do you explain grown adults thinking that they can present this crap as if it means something?

happiness is not an empirical variable, there are no error bars, and the US is 2.6% away from socialist paradise Sweden, which is more than that away from Denmark. The US is not one place, nor one homogeneous people, it is a vast nation that varies greatly, it is supremely niave to think you can sum it all up with one number for a subjective emotion. Have you always been this stupid? or did it happen when you started believing the liberal religion?

What "liberal religion" ? Have you always been this stupid with your anger issues?

I presented ONE study that associates ONE positive variable to countries that happen to have socialized medicine.
Socialized medicine can work; it obviously depends on the details of its implementation along with other variables.
Get a grip ...

your liberal religion, the one that makes you think you can post the crap you did as if it means anything

it is not a study, it is a piece of religious propaganda... 'happiness index'?

Apparently, you are ignorant about psychological metrics, in addition to not understanding the difference between scientific methods & dogmatic religions.
Get an education ... to supplement your financial greed. There's more to happiness than tons of money.

 

[NCC1701]

Socialized medicine does not work...

If so, how do you explain the "happiest countries" in the world having socialized medicine?

http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/03/HR-V1_web.pdf

how do you explain grown adults thinking that they can present this crap as if it means something?

happiness is not an empirical variable, there are no error bars, and the US is 2.6% away from socialist paradise Sweden, which is more than that away from Denmark. The US is not one place, nor one homogeneous people, it is a vast nation that varies greatly, it is supremely niave to think you can sum it all up with one number for a subjective emotion. Have you always been this stupid? or did it happen when you started believing the liberal religion?

What "liberal religion" ? Have you always been this stupid with your anger issues?

I presented ONE study that associates ONE positive variable to countries that happen to have socialized medicine.
Socialized medicine can work; it obviously depends on the details of its implementation along with other variables.
Get a grip ...

your liberal religion, the one that makes you think you can post the crap you did as if it means anything

it is not a study, it is a piece of religious propaganda... 'happiness index'?

Apparently, you are ignorant about psychological metrics, in addition to not understanding the difference between scientific methods & dogmatic religions.
Get an education ... to supplement your financial greed. There's more to happiness than tons of money.

Idiot, your piece of propaganda used a 0-10 scale to measure 'subjective happiness' then made some assumptions about how to weight other metrics like GDP. Anybody who knows anything about science can see immediately that this is arbitrary crap, and making any conclusion about a 4% difference between USA and others is pure agenda driven horseshit

I am afraid you are the one showing a level of sophistication far below normal

 

[JQPublic1]

Its obvious that the market isnt working in the US.
Why ?
Profit comes before patients.
Why do your medicines cost more than ours ?
Go figure.

That's not the reason Tommy. Yes the market isn't working, because we don't have a market.

You can't blame the problems in a system on Capitalism, when it isn't a Capitalist system.

We have a very very socialized system in the US.

What is the number one complaint from all the left-wingers? Cost. They don't complain about the quality of care. You don't see people saying treatment in the US is so bad, that they are flying to Pakistan to get treatment.

When they do surveys of medical tourists from the UK, what is the number one reason? Wait times. You wait for years to get treatment, which in the case of cancer or other illnesses can be lethal.

But when they do survey's of medical tourists from the US, what is the number one reason? Cost. I can get the same treatment for a few thousand, instead of $10 thousand, elsewhere.

So cost is the number one problem. Well why is cost so high? There are dozens of contributing factors, but the largest and most damaging is...... Government. Namely Medicare and Medicaid.

Both Medicare and Medicaid, routinely pay less than the cost of care. Since 50% or more of patients are gov-patients, that means the hospital would go bankrupt. In order to not go bankrupt, they have to charge a much larger price to non-gov-patients, in order to cover the loss from gov-patients.

See? As medicare and medicaid payments fall lower than the cost of care, the payments of private payers is increased to cover those losses.

The primary, number one, top of the list factor that makes health care so expensive in the US.... is government.

I could list you a dozen other causes to, like regulations, controls, price caps, everything... all government.

Perhaps you should rethink the notion that socialized medicine is failing everywhere. There plenty of evidence that contradicts you:

The U.S. health care system has been subject to heated debate over the past decade, but one thing that has remained consistent is the level of performance, which has been ranked as the worst among industrialized nations for the fifth time, according to the 2014 Commonwealth Fund survey 2014. The U.K. ranked best with Switzerland following a close second.

The Commonwealth Fund report compares the U.S. with 10 other nations: France, Australia, Germany, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the U.K. were all judged to be superior based on various factors. These include quality of care, access to doctors and equity throughout the country. Results of the study rely on data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organization and interviews from physicians and patients.

Although the U.S. has the most expensive health care system in the world, the nation ranks lowest in terms of “efficiency, equity and outcomes,” according to the report. One of the most piercing revelations is that the high rate of expenditure for insurance is not commensurate to the satisfaction of patients or quality of service. High out-of-pocket costs and gaps in coverage “undermine efforts in the U.S. to improve care coordination,” the report summarized.

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

 

[JQPublic1]

Its obvious that the market isnt working in the US.
Why ?
Profit comes before patients.
Why do your medicines cost more than ours ?
Go figure.

That's not the reason Tommy. Yes the market isn't working, because we don't have a market.

You can't blame the problems in a system on Capitalism, when it isn't a Capitalist system.

We have a very very socialized system in the US.

What is the number one complaint from all the left-wingers? Cost. They don't complain about the quality of care. You don't see people saying treatment in the US is so bad, that they are flying to Pakistan to get treatment.

When they do surveys of medical tourists from the UK, what is the number one reason? Wait times. You wait for years to get treatment, which in the case of cancer or other illnesses can be lethal.

But when they do survey's of medical tourists from the US, what is the number one reason? Cost. I can get the same treatment for a few thousand, instead of $10 thousand, elsewhere.

So cost is the number one problem. Well why is cost so high? There are dozens of contributing factors, but the largest and most damaging is...... Government. Namely Medicare and Medicaid.

Both Medicare and Medicaid, routinely pay less than the cost of care. Since 50% or more of patients are gov-patients, that means the hospital would go bankrupt. In order to not go bankrupt, they have to charge a much larger price to non-gov-patients, in order to cover the loss from gov-patients.

See? As medicare and medicaid payments fall lower than the cost of care, the payments of private payers is increased to cover those losses.

The primary, number one, top of the list factor that makes health care so expensive in the US.... is government.

I could list you a dozen other causes to, like regulations, controls, price caps, everything... all government.

There are reasons for the current problems in the UK. Not least the government has a vested interest in introducing a privatised american style system in the UK.
I will find some links for you when I get a minute.

Of course they have vested interest. All things political, don't happen without vested interest. The whole reason our government is pushing for socialized care, is because they have vested interest.

Anytime any government does anything... whether you like it and agree with it, or if you hate it and oppose it.... both are only done for vested interest.

The vested interest is a genuine concern for the heath of average people in a heavily capitalists indoctrinated country like the USA. Philanthropy isn't going to do it and the profit margins of health insurers won't do it. The Social models that prevail in most industrialized nations have proven to be more favorable to the health and general welfare of the respective masses.
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World

 

[Andylusion]

Its obvious that the market isnt working in the US.
Why ?
Profit comes before patients.
Why do your medicines cost more than ours ?
Go figure.

That's not the reason Tommy. Yes the market isn't working, because we don't have a market.

You can't blame the problems in a system on Capitalism, when it isn't a Capitalist system.

We have a very very socialized system in the US.

What is the number one complaint from all the left-wingers? Cost. They don't complain about the quality of care. You don't see people saying treatment in the US is so bad, that they are flying to Pakistan to get treatment.

When they do surveys of medical tourists from the UK, what is the number one reason? Wait times. You wait for years to get treatment, which in the case of cancer or other illnesses can be lethal.

But when they do survey's of medical tourists from the US, what is the number one reason? Cost. I can get the same treatment for a few thousand, instead of $10 thousand, elsewhere.

So cost is the number one problem. Well why is cost so high? There are dozens of contributing factors, but the largest and most damaging is...... Government. Namely Medicare and Medicaid.

Both Medicare and Medicaid, routinely pay less than the cost of care. Since 50% or more of patients are gov-patients, that means the hospital would go bankrupt. In order to not go bankrupt, they have to charge a much larger price to non-gov-patients, in order to cover the loss from gov-patients.

See? As medicare and medicaid payments fall lower than the cost of care, the payments of private payers is increased to cover those losses.

The primary, number one, top of the list factor that makes health care so expensive in the US.... is government.

I could list you a dozen other causes to, like regulations, controls, price caps, everything... all government.

There are reasons for the current problems in the UK. Not least the government has a vested interest in introducing a privatised american style system in the UK.
I will find some links for you when I get a minute.

Of course they have vested interest. All things political, don't happen without vested interest. The whole reason our government is pushing for socialized care, is because they have vested interest.

Anytime any government does anything... whether you like it and agree with it, or if you hate it and oppose it.... both are only done for vested interest.

The vested interest is a genuine concern for the heath of average people in a heavily capitalists indoctrinated country like the USA. Philanthropy isn't going to do it and the profit margins of health insurers won't do it. The Social models that prevail in most industrialized nations have proven to be more favorable to the health and general welfare of the respective masses.
U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World

Once again, this is baffling. Maybe you missed the several posts in this thread already where I showed conclusively that UK has more deaths, less quality, more wait times, and worse health care outcomes than the US routinely.... and this is from the UK government itself among other sources.

Yet you post a survey.... notice....a survey.... not a fact based assessment of health care outcomes, but a survey that says the UK's health care is much better than the US.

Do you need me to go back to the other posts and copy&paste them here all over again, to show you the difference between fact and opinion?

By the way, look at the measures for your survey.

Healthy lives: What does health care have to do with healthy lives? If I choose to drink alcohol non-stop until I have liver failure... is that the hospitals fault? If we have gov-health care would my liver magically work better?

Equity: So if everyone dies equally, that means its better care? I can rent a gym, put a dozens bunk beds in the gym, give everyone a wet wipe.... and that is equal care. Does that mean it's good care?

Efficiency: Based on what? French and UK patients are 'less likely'..... to visit the ER for conditions that a doctor would do. Great, but that doesn't mean they have better outcomes. They don't. Even the UK's own government report says that ER patients are 3 times more likely to die, than US patients.

Access: Yeah, access to what? A waiting list? UK patients routinely wait years for basic health care and treatment. They have more access to a list. Great. Again, what are the health care outcomes? Which place are you more likely to actually be treated and survive? The US. By every single statically measure... not opinion based survey... the US has better outcomes.

Over and over and over, this survey you posted, measure everything BUT survival rates and outcomes. They look at how "equal" it is... and how much "access" they have... and how "efficient" they supposedly are.... and how "healthy" they live.....

but they conveniently miss the crucial number one, key fundamental primary purpose of health care..... What are the chances you will be diagnosed, treated, and cured, and survive your illness? What about that measurement?

And the reason they avoid that, is really simple.... because every single time you look at those numbers.... you have a better chance of being healed, and surviving your illness in the US, more than any other country on the face of the Earth.

 

[JQPublic1]

Once again, this is baffling. Maybe you missed the several posts in this thread already where I showed conclusively that UK has more deaths, less quality, more wait times, and worse health care outcomes than the US routinely.... and this is from the UK government itself among other sources.

If you posted that information without a link, I probably dismissed it as pure fabrication.

Yet you post a survey.... notice....a survey.... not a fact based assessment of health care outcomes, but a survey that says the UK's health care is much better than the US.

The Commonwealth Fund's survey is but one part of a far more comprehensive study involving research databases from the World Heath Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.

Do you need me to go back to the other posts and copy&paste them here all over again, to show you the difference between fact and opinion?

Just post the links to your sources. Link less posts have no value here.

By the way, look at the measures for your survey.

Healthy lives: What does health care have to do with healthy lives? If I choose to drink alcohol non-stop until I have liver failure... is that the hospitals fault? If we have gov-health care would my liver magically work better?

If you had read the study you would have your answer.

Equity: So if everyone dies equally, that means its better care? I can rent a gym, put a dozens bunk beds in the gym, give everyone a wet wipe.... and that is equal care. Does that mean it's good care?

Read the friggin'' study instead of jumping to your own biased conclusions.

Efficiency: Based on what? French and UK patients are 'less likely'..... to visit the ER for conditions that a doctor would do. Great, but that doesn't mean they have better outcomes. They don't. Even the UK's own government report says that ER patients are 3 times more likely to die, than US patients.

I googled that and found your claim to be outrageous... here is a link I found by googling your own words and it doesn't match what you claim. Ther is no comparison between US and UK ER death rates. The report says people who have a heart attack in the hospital are 3 times more likely to die than those who have one at home and are transported to the hospital.


Heart attack patients in hospital THREE TIMES more likely to die than those who have one at home | Daily Mail Online

BTW, the US was dead last in outcomes according to the study!

Access: Yeah, access to what? A waiting list? UK patients routinely wait years for basic health care and treatment. They have more access to a list. Great. Again, what are the health care outcomes? Which place are you more likely to actually be treated and survive? The US. By every single statically measure... not opinion based survey... the US has better outcomes.

Not according to the CF study. the opinions of physicians and patients coupled with research data from the W.H.O. and Centers for Disease Control is more than enough to validate the study.

Over and over and over, this survey you posted, measure everything BUT survival rates and outcomes. They look at how "equal" it is... and how much "access" they have... and how "efficient" they supposedly are.... and how "healthy" they live.....

You need to read the entire study. It does address outcomes and the US fared poorly. Once again, the survey of Physicians and patients was only a part of an in depth data analysis. Ands just to make you more uncomfortable, here is an earlier study that does not include a survey. This one is based on research and data analysis only!:

Spoiler: US has high rate of preventable dearths

The Commonwealth Fund Mission:



The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.





About the Study

The authors use mortality and population data from the World Health Organization’s mortality database (France, Germany, and the U.K.) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.). They looked at rates of amenable mortality for people under age 65, as well as for those between ages 65 and 74, from conditions like treatable cancer, diabetes, infections, and heart disease.







Key Findings

• Between 1999 and 2007, rates of potentially preventable deaths among men under age 75 fell by 18.5 percent in the U.S. During the same time period, the rate declined by 37 percent in the U.K., by 28 percent in France, and by 24 percent in Germany (2006).
• For women, the rates fell by 17.5 percent in the U.S., 32 percent in the U.K., and 23 percent in both France and Germany.
• In 2007, amenable mortality was highest in the U.S., with rates almost twice those seen in France, which had the lowest level of the four countries studied.
• The pace of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other countries for the two age groups examined—individuals under age 65 and those ages 65 to 74. However, the lag was most pronounced among American men and women younger than 65. These individuals are more likely to be uninsured than are Medicare-eligible Americans age 65 and older. They are also more likely to be uninsured than their European counterparts, who have access to universal coverage.

The Bottom Line

Rates of potentially preventable death were highest in the United States, compared with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. In addition, the rate of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other three countries.

In Amenable Mortality—Deaths Avoidable Through Health Care—Progress in the U.S. Lags That of Three European Countries

And don't start with that "we have more automobile accidents" BS. The study is controlled for people having specific ailments that killed them . The US had the highest rates for preventable deaths in the study!

but they conveniently miss the crucial number one, key fundamental primary purpose of health care..... What are the chances you will be diagnosed, treated, and cured, and survive your illness? What about that measurement?

Click the spoiler to find out!

And the reason they avoid that, is really simple.... because every single time you look at those numbers.... you have a better chance of being healed, and surviving your illness in the US, more than any other country on the face of the Earth.

Not according to the experts over at the Commonwealth Foundation and they have the data to back it up in all the known methodologies including surveys of physicans and their patients, research and data analyses of key heath databases of W.H.O ad other major health agencies.. The US does have the most expensive healthcare in the world but the socialists have the best quality at a much lower cost!

 

[NCC1701]

Once again, this is baffling. Maybe you missed the several posts in this thread already where I showed conclusively that UK has more deaths, less quality, more wait times, and worse health care outcomes than the US routinely.... and this is from the UK government itself among other sources.

If you posted that information without a link, I probably dismissed it as pure fabrication.

Yet you post a survey.... notice....a survey.... not a fact based assessment of health care outcomes, but a survey that says the UK's health care is much better than the US.

The Commonwealth Fund's survey is but one part of a far more comprehensive study involving research databases from the World Heath Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.

Do you need me to go back to the other posts and copy&paste them here all over again, to show you the difference between fact and opinion?

Just post the links to your sources. Link less posts have no value here.

By the way, look at the measures for your survey.

Healthy lives: What does health care have to do with healthy lives? If I choose to drink alcohol non-stop until I have liver failure... is that the hospitals fault? If we have gov-health care would my liver magically work better?

If you had read the study you would have your answer.

Equity: So if everyone dies equally, that means its better care? I can rent a gym, put a dozens bunk beds in the gym, give everyone a wet wipe.... and that is equal care. Does that mean it's good care?

Read the friggin'' study instead of jumping to your own biased conclusions.

Efficiency: Based on what? French and UK patients are 'less likely'..... to visit the ER for conditions that a doctor would do. Great, but that doesn't mean they have better outcomes. They don't. Even the UK's own government report says that ER patients are 3 times more likely to die, than US patients.

I googled that and found your claim to be outrageous... here is a link I found by googling your own words and it doesn't match what you claim. Ther is no comparison between US and UK ER death rates. The report says people who have a heart attack in the hospital are 3 times more likely to die than those who have one at home and are transported to the hospital.


Heart attack patients in hospital THREE TIMES more likely to die than those who have one at home | Daily Mail Online

BTW, the US was dead last in outcomes according to the study!

Access: Yeah, access to what? A waiting list? UK patients routinely wait years for basic health care and treatment. They have more access to a list. Great. Again, what are the health care outcomes? Which place are you more likely to actually be treated and survive? The US. By every single statically measure... not opinion based survey... the US has better outcomes.

Not according to the CF study. the opinions of physicians and patients coupled with research data from the W.H.O. and Centers for Disease Control is more than enough to validate the study.

Over and over and over, this survey you posted, measure everything BUT survival rates and outcomes. They look at how "equal" it is... and how much "access" they have... and how "efficient" they supposedly are.... and how "healthy" they live.....

You need to read the entire study. It does address outcomes and the US fared poorly. Once again, the survey of Physicians and patients was only a part of an in depth data analysis. Ands just to make you more uncomfortable, here is an earlier study that does not include a survey. This one is based on research and data analysis only!:

Spoiler: US has high rate of preventable dearths

The Commonwealth Fund Mission:



The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.





About the Study

The authors use mortality and population data from the World Health Organization’s mortality database (France, Germany, and the U.K.) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.). They looked at rates of amenable mortality for people under age 65, as well as for those between ages 65 and 74, from conditions like treatable cancer, diabetes, infections, and heart disease.







Key Findings

• Between 1999 and 2007, rates of potentially preventable deaths among men under age 75 fell by 18.5 percent in the U.S. During the same time period, the rate declined by 37 percent in the U.K., by 28 percent in France, and by 24 percent in Germany (2006).
• For women, the rates fell by 17.5 percent in the U.S., 32 percent in the U.K., and 23 percent in both France and Germany.
• In 2007, amenable mortality was highest in the U.S., with rates almost twice those seen in France, which had the lowest level of the four countries studied.
• The pace of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other countries for the two age groups examined—individuals under age 65 and those ages 65 to 74. However, the lag was most pronounced among American men and women younger than 65. These individuals are more likely to be uninsured than are Medicare-eligible Americans age 65 and older. They are also more likely to be uninsured than their European counterparts, who have access to universal coverage.

The Bottom Line

Rates of potentially preventable death were highest in the United States, compared with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. In addition, the rate of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other three countries.

In Amenable Mortality—Deaths Avoidable Through Health Care—Progress in the U.S. Lags That of Three European Countries

And don't start with that "we have more automobile accidents" BS. The study is controlled for people having specific ailments that killed them . The US had the highest rates for preventable deaths in the study!

but they conveniently miss the crucial number one, key fundamental primary purpose of health care..... What are the chances you will be diagnosed, treated, and cured, and survive your illness? What about that measurement?

Click the spoiler to find out!

And the reason they avoid that, is really simple.... because every single time you look at those numbers.... you have a better chance of being healed, and surviving your illness in the US, more than any other country on the face of the Earth.

Not according to the experts over at the Commonwealth Foundation and they have the data to back it up in all the known methodologies including surveys of physicans and their patients, research and data analyses of key heath databases of W.H.O ad other major health agencies.. The US does have the most expensive healthcare in the world but the socialists have the best quality at a much lower cost!

the last commonwealth study ranked Britain number 1 in just about everything but second last in healthy lives without even blinking at the contradiction

here, this lady below does a fine job at ripping your vaunted study, I'll let her most of the talking. Pretty funny that one would conclude that Sweden and Norway really suck at quality but have great health care systems. The US ranks fifth in quality, ahead of Norway and Sweden according to your study, so what the hell are you bitching about quality for? Canada sucks just as bad as the US overall (LOL) but they have your holy grail single payer. France has shitty access, but they are very healthy (high outcomes). You chose a really poor study to back your claims as in fact it shoots down the liberal platform, all of the variables that set the US down in ranking have to do with cost and equity, not the quality of the care itself, and when one does have crappy access and quality as in France you can be healthier for it.

Digging deeper into the Commonwealth Fund health rankings
".....Except, one thing in that picture looks very peculiar. The UK, the poster child of frugal and immaculate perfection, scored almost as bad as we did in the only domain that can be regarded as an outcome: health. The bon vivant French people, with the worst access to care and horrific patient-centeredness, seem to enjoy the healthiest lives of all (and Jefferson is finally vindicated). Looking further, it seems that Sweden, where care is of abysmal quality, but most equitable and efficient, came in second in healthy lives and third overall. Can something even be simultaneously of low quality and very efficient? Can a country have dangerous, ineffective care, like Norway, and still be ranked comfortably in the middle of the pack? For inquiring minds of the confused variety, the study provides more granular data points to peruse, so let’s dive in

.....Let’s dig in a little deeper. The quality domain is divided into four subdomains: effective care, safe care, coordinated care and patient-centeredness. Without debating this particular definition of quality, let’s look at how effectiveness is measured on two axes, preventive care and chronic care, each one assessed based on a series of data points. So for example, the first three prevention measures are:

1. the ease of printing out lists of patients due for preventive care
   
2. patients who received preventive care reminders
   
3. patients routinely sent computerized reminders for preventive and routine care
   

I would call this triple dipping, because the only measure that actually counts here is whether patients received reminders or not, and how they responded, which was not measured at all. Whether it is easy to “print out” lists, or whether people are bombarded with computer calls that nobody picks up the phone for, is irrelevant.

The U.S. was ranked 3rd for patients receiving reminders and 7th for the other two useless measures. The UK ranked 1st for the useless measures and 5th for the mildly pertinent measure. For the remaining preventive measures, dealing with lifestyle advice provided by physicians to their patients, the U.S. ranked 1st and 2nd overall. To assess effectiveness, I would have expected perhaps a ratio of reminders sent, to reminders acted upon by patients, or at least reminders received, instead of an average score for those two, plus some strange measure about printing lists to paper."


The chronic care portion of the effectiveness subdomain illustrates yet another logical flaw in the study. Similar to the preventive care measures, here too the U.S. scores decently on actual chronic care activities, and poorly on ease of producing lists. But the bigger issue is the one measure evaluating cost barriers to adherence, and as expected the U.S. scored poorly on affordability, which is what this measure is all about. It may be fine to blast the U.S. system for being expensive, but to say that we are paying too much for a bad system, while assessing badness based on the system being expensive, is circular logic that should have no place in serious scientific conversation.

 

[JQPublic1]

Once again, this is baffling. Maybe you missed the several posts in this thread already where I showed conclusively that UK has more deaths, less quality, more wait times, and worse health care outcomes than the US routinely.... and this is from the UK government itself among other sources.

If you posted that information without a link, I probably dismissed it as pure fabrication.

Yet you post a survey.... notice....a survey.... not a fact based assessment of health care outcomes, but a survey that says the UK's health care is much better than the US.

The Commonwealth Fund's survey is but one part of a far more comprehensive study involving research databases from the World Heath Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.

Do you need me to go back to the other posts and copy&paste them here all over again, to show you the difference between fact and opinion?

Just post the links to your sources. Link less posts have no value here.

By the way, look at the measures for your survey.

Healthy lives: What does health care have to do with healthy lives? If I choose to drink alcohol non-stop until I have liver failure... is that the hospitals fault? If we have gov-health care would my liver magically work better?

If you had read the study you would have your answer.

Equity: So if everyone dies equally, that means its better care? I can rent a gym, put a dozens bunk beds in the gym, give everyone a wet wipe.... and that is equal care. Does that mean it's good care?

Read the friggin'' study instead of jumping to your own biased conclusions.

Efficiency: Based on what? French and UK patients are 'less likely'..... to visit the ER for conditions that a doctor would do. Great, but that doesn't mean they have better outcomes. They don't. Even the UK's own government report says that ER patients are 3 times more likely to die, than US patients.

I googled that and found your claim to be outrageous... here is a link I found by googling your own words and it doesn't match what you claim. Ther is no comparison between US and UK ER death rates. The report says people who have a heart attack in the hospital are 3 times more likely to die than those who have one at home and are transported to the hospital.


Heart attack patients in hospital THREE TIMES more likely to die than those who have one at home | Daily Mail Online

BTW, the US was dead last in outcomes according to the study!

Access: Yeah, access to what? A waiting list? UK patients routinely wait years for basic health care and treatment. They have more access to a list. Great. Again, what are the health care outcomes? Which place are you more likely to actually be treated and survive? The US. By every single statically measure... not opinion based survey... the US has better outcomes.

Not according to the CF study. the opinions of physicians and patients coupled with research data from the W.H.O. and Centers for Disease Control is more than enough to validate the study.

Over and over and over, this survey you posted, measure everything BUT survival rates and outcomes. They look at how "equal" it is... and how much "access" they have... and how "efficient" they supposedly are.... and how "healthy" they live.....

You need to read the entire study. It does address outcomes and the US fared poorly. Once again, the survey of Physicians and patients was only a part of an in depth data analysis. Ands just to make you more uncomfortable, here is an earlier study that does not include a survey. This one is based on research and data analysis only!:

Spoiler: US has high rate of preventable dearths

The Commonwealth Fund Mission:



The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.





About the Study

The authors use mortality and population data from the World Health Organization’s mortality database (France, Germany, and the U.K.) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.). They looked at rates of amenable mortality for people under age 65, as well as for those between ages 65 and 74, from conditions like treatable cancer, diabetes, infections, and heart disease.







Key Findings

• Between 1999 and 2007, rates of potentially preventable deaths among men under age 75 fell by 18.5 percent in the U.S. During the same time period, the rate declined by 37 percent in the U.K., by 28 percent in France, and by 24 percent in Germany (2006).
• For women, the rates fell by 17.5 percent in the U.S., 32 percent in the U.K., and 23 percent in both France and Germany.
• In 2007, amenable mortality was highest in the U.S., with rates almost twice those seen in France, which had the lowest level of the four countries studied.
• The pace of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other countries for the two age groups examined—individuals under age 65 and those ages 65 to 74. However, the lag was most pronounced among American men and women younger than 65. These individuals are more likely to be uninsured than are Medicare-eligible Americans age 65 and older. They are also more likely to be uninsured than their European counterparts, who have access to universal coverage.

The Bottom Line

Rates of potentially preventable death were highest in the United States, compared with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. In addition, the rate of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other three countries.

In Amenable Mortality—Deaths Avoidable Through Health Care—Progress in the U.S. Lags That of Three European Countries

And don't start with that "we have more automobile accidents" BS. The study is controlled for people having specific ailments that killed them . The US had the highest rates for preventable deaths in the study!

but they conveniently miss the crucial number one, key fundamental primary purpose of health care..... What are the chances you will be diagnosed, treated, and cured, and survive your illness? What about that measurement?

Click the spoiler to find out!

And the reason they avoid that, is really simple.... because every single time you look at those numbers.... you have a better chance of being healed, and surviving your illness in the US, more than any other country on the face of the Earth.

Not according to the experts over at the Commonwealth Foundation and they have the data to back it up in all the known methodologies including surveys of physicans and their patients, research and data analyses of key heath databases of W.H.O ad other major health agencies.. The US does have the most expensive healthcare in the world but the socialists have the best quality at a much lower cost!

the last commonwealth study ranked Britain number 1 in just about everything but second last in healthy lives without even blinking at the contradiction

here, this lady below does a fine job at ripping your vaunted study, I'll let her most of the talking. Pretty funny that one would conclude that Sweden and Norway really suck at quality but have great health care systems. The US ranks fifth in quality, ahead of Norway and Sweden according to your study, so what the hell are you bitching about quality for? Canada sucks just as bad as the US overall (LOL) but they have your holy grail single payer. France has shitty access, but they are very healthy (high outcomes). You chose a really poor study to back your claims as in fact it shoots down the liberal platform, all of the variables that set the US down in ranking have to do with cost and equity, not the quality of the care itself, and when one does have crappy access and quality as in France you can be healthier for it.

Digging deeper into the Commonwealth Fund health rankings
".....Except, one thing in that picture looks very peculiar. The UK, the poster child of frugal and immaculate perfection, scored almost as bad as we did in the only domain that can be regarded as an outcome: health. The bon vivant French people, with the worst access to care and horrific patient-centeredness, seem to enjoy the healthiest lives of all (and Jefferson is finally vindicated). Looking further, it seems that Sweden, where care is of abysmal quality, but most equitable and efficient, came in second in healthy lives and third overall. Can something even be simultaneously of low quality and very efficient? Can a country have dangerous, ineffective care, like Norway, and still be ranked comfortably in the middle of the pack? For inquiring minds of the confused variety, the study provides more granular data points to peruse, so let’s dive in

.....Let’s dig in a little deeper. The quality domain is divided into four subdomains: effective care, safe care, coordinated care and patient-centeredness. Without debating this particular definition of quality, let’s look at how effectiveness is measured on two axes, preventive care and chronic care, each one assessed based on a series of data points. So for example, the first three prevention measures are:

1. the ease of printing out lists of patients due for preventive care
   
2. patients who received preventive care reminders
   
3. patients routinely sent computerized reminders for preventive and routine care
   

I would call this triple dipping, because the only measure that actually counts here is whether patients received reminders or not, and how they responded, which was not measured at all. Whether it is easy to “print out” lists, or whether people are bombarded with computer calls that nobody picks up the phone for, is irrelevant.

The U.S. was ranked 3rd for patients receiving reminders and 7th for the other two useless measures. The UK ranked 1st for the useless measures and 5th for the mildly pertinent measure. For the remaining preventive measures, dealing with lifestyle advice provided by physicians to their patients, the U.S. ranked 1st and 2nd overall. To assess effectiveness, I would have expected perhaps a ratio of reminders sent, to reminders acted upon by patients, or at least reminders received, instead of an average score for those two, plus some strange measure about printing lists to paper."


The chronic care portion of the effectiveness subdomain illustrates yet another logical flaw in the study. Similar to the preventive care measures, here too the U.S. scores decently on actual chronic care activities, and poorly on ease of producing lists. But the bigger issue is the one measure evaluating cost barriers to adherence, and as expected the U.S. scored poorly on affordability, which is what this measure is all about. It may be fine to blast the U.S. system for being expensive, but to say that we are paying too much for a bad system, while assessing badness based on the system being expensive, is circular logic that should have no place in serious scientific conversation.

Great response but somewhat limited in regards to real substance. You began your attack on the seeming contradiction between the UK's number one ranking in just about every column on the chart ( the one you found in the link I posted) except for "healthy lives." Obviously, you don't respect the CF authors as professionals so you didn't bother to read the accompanying explanation. I'll take the liberty of putting it here where the goats ( and sheep) can get it: (note: after opening spoiler, click again to close it for easier reading of the next issue in this post.)

Spoiler: Healthy Lives, Explained

HEALTHY LIVES

The goal of a well-functioning health care system is to ensure that people lead long, healthy, and productive lives. To measure this dimension, Exhibit 8 includes three outcome indicators, including mortality amenable to health care—that is, deaths that could have been prevented with timely and effective care; infant mortality; and healthy life expectancy.

On the three healthy lives indicators, France ranks highest overall—scoring among the top three coun- tries on each indicator—and Sweden ranks second. The U.S. ranks last on mortality amenable to health care, last on infant mortality, and second-to-last on healthy life expectancy at age 60. Notably, countries’ perfor- mance on these three outcomes indicators did not necessarily align with their ranks on the other dimensions of health system performance. France ranks near the bottom overall, whereas the U.K., which ranks first or second on every other dimension, ranks near the bottom of healthy lives. Unfortunately, scarce cross-nation- ally comparable data on health outcomes limit this dimension to only three indicators. However, the indica- tors that are available demonstrate the health care system to be just one of many factors, including social and economic well-being, that influence the health of a nation.

The finding that the U.S. lags in health outcomes despite spending so much more than other coun- tries on health care echoes the findings in the Institute of Medicine’s 2013 report on the health of the U.S. population, which found the U.S. has worse health and premature death rates in all age groups and at all income levels.18 The wealth of data amassed by the IOM underscores a clear need to focus on improving population health along with the performance of the health care delivery system. Page 25 of link!

The "contradiction "was duly noted in the report and explained, but; your focus on it doesn't absolve the pathetic ranking of the US as dead last. Perhaps your focus on THAT glaring disparity would be more beneficial to all of us if you would join in finding the means to reform our expensive also-ran healthcare system. Perhaps the first step would be to address the false news circulating the lie that USA based health care is the best in the world.

Spoiler: QUALITY EXPLAINED:

It is difficult to disentangle the effects of health insurance coverage from the quality of care experi- ences reported by U.S. patients. Comprehensiveness of insurance and stability of coverage are likely to play a role in patients’ access to care and interactions with physicians. We found that insured Americans and higher- income Americans were more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report problems such as not getting recommended tests, treatments, or prescription drugs. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the lack of comprehensive health insurance coverage and the high out-of-pocket costs for care in the U.S., even among the insured and those with above-average incomes. Fragmented coverage and insurance instability undermine efforts in the U.S. to improve care coordination, including the sharing of information among providers. Patients in other countries, in addition, are more likely to have a regular physician and long-time continuity with the same physician.

The Affordable Care Act is designed to ameliorate some of these problems. The establishment of health insurance marketplaces, income-related premium subsidies, minimum essential benefit packages, and new insurance market regulations in 2014 will help extend coverage to an estimated 26 million previously uninsured Americans and contribute greatly to the stability and security of coverage of those who already

The "lady" you used in your response seems intelligent but is she a physician? I think not due to her apparent lack of attention to detail and.or reading comprehension. I do concede she, and you, did add some spice to the commentary and your counter argument was a delight to read.

 

[Andylusion]

Once again, this is baffling. Maybe you missed the several posts in this thread already where I showed conclusively that UK has more deaths, less quality, more wait times, and worse health care outcomes than the US routinely.... and this is from the UK government itself among other sources.

If you posted that information without a link, I probably dismissed it as pure fabrication.

Yet you post a survey.... notice....a survey.... not a fact based assessment of health care outcomes, but a survey that says the UK's health care is much better than the US.

The Commonwealth Fund's survey is but one part of a far more comprehensive study involving research databases from the World Heath Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.

Do you need me to go back to the other posts and copy&paste them here all over again, to show you the difference between fact and opinion?

Just post the links to your sources. Link less posts have no value here.

By the way, look at the measures for your survey.

Healthy lives: What does health care have to do with healthy lives? If I choose to drink alcohol non-stop until I have liver failure... is that the hospitals fault? If we have gov-health care would my liver magically work better?

If you had read the study you would have your answer.

Equity: So if everyone dies equally, that means its better care? I can rent a gym, put a dozens bunk beds in the gym, give everyone a wet wipe.... and that is equal care. Does that mean it's good care?

Read the friggin'' study instead of jumping to your own biased conclusions.

Efficiency: Based on what? French and UK patients are 'less likely'..... to visit the ER for conditions that a doctor would do. Great, but that doesn't mean they have better outcomes. They don't. Even the UK's own government report says that ER patients are 3 times more likely to die, than US patients.

I googled that and found your claim to be outrageous... here is a link I found by googling your own words and it doesn't match what you claim. Ther is no comparison between US and UK ER death rates. The report says people who have a heart attack in the hospital are 3 times more likely to die than those who have one at home and are transported to the hospital.


Heart attack patients in hospital THREE TIMES more likely to die than those who have one at home | Daily Mail Online

BTW, the US was dead last in outcomes according to the study!

Access: Yeah, access to what? A waiting list? UK patients routinely wait years for basic health care and treatment. They have more access to a list. Great. Again, what are the health care outcomes? Which place are you more likely to actually be treated and survive? The US. By every single statically measure... not opinion based survey... the US has better outcomes.

Not according to the CF study. the opinions of physicians and patients coupled with research data from the W.H.O. and Centers for Disease Control is more than enough to validate the study.

Over and over and over, this survey you posted, measure everything BUT survival rates and outcomes. They look at how "equal" it is... and how much "access" they have... and how "efficient" they supposedly are.... and how "healthy" they live.....

You need to read the entire study. It does address outcomes and the US fared poorly. Once again, the survey of Physicians and patients was only a part of an in depth data analysis. Ands just to make you more uncomfortable, here is an earlier study that does not include a survey. This one is based on research and data analysis only!:

Spoiler: US has high rate of preventable dearths

The Commonwealth Fund Mission:



The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.





About the Study

The authors use mortality and population data from the World Health Organization’s mortality database (France, Germany, and the U.K.) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.). They looked at rates of amenable mortality for people under age 65, as well as for those between ages 65 and 74, from conditions like treatable cancer, diabetes, infections, and heart disease.







Key Findings

• Between 1999 and 2007, rates of potentially preventable deaths among men under age 75 fell by 18.5 percent in the U.S. During the same time period, the rate declined by 37 percent in the U.K., by 28 percent in France, and by 24 percent in Germany (2006).
• For women, the rates fell by 17.5 percent in the U.S., 32 percent in the U.K., and 23 percent in both France and Germany.
• In 2007, amenable mortality was highest in the U.S., with rates almost twice those seen in France, which had the lowest level of the four countries studied.
• The pace of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other countries for the two age groups examined—individuals under age 65 and those ages 65 to 74. However, the lag was most pronounced among American men and women younger than 65. These individuals are more likely to be uninsured than are Medicare-eligible Americans age 65 and older. They are also more likely to be uninsured than their European counterparts, who have access to universal coverage.

The Bottom Line

Rates of potentially preventable death were highest in the United States, compared with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. In addition, the rate of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other three countries.

In Amenable Mortality—Deaths Avoidable Through Health Care—Progress in the U.S. Lags That of Three European Countries

And don't start with that "we have more automobile accidents" BS. The study is controlled for people having specific ailments that killed them . The US had the highest rates for preventable deaths in the study!

but they conveniently miss the crucial number one, key fundamental primary purpose of health care..... What are the chances you will be diagnosed, treated, and cured, and survive your illness? What about that measurement?

Click the spoiler to find out!

And the reason they avoid that, is really simple.... because every single time you look at those numbers.... you have a better chance of being healed, and surviving your illness in the US, more than any other country on the face of the Earth.

Not according to the experts over at the Commonwealth Foundation and they have the data to back it up in all the known methodologies including surveys of physicans and their patients, research and data analyses of key heath databases of W.H.O ad other major health agencies.. The US does have the most expensive healthcare in the world but the socialists have the best quality at a much lower cost!

I posted links to each and every single one of my claims, including reports from the UK government itself.

If you dismissed documented fact, that makes you incompetent to discuss this topic. Moving on.

The Commonwealth Fund's survey is but one part of a far more comprehensive study involving research databases from the World Heath Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.

I have followed the Mirror Mirror on the Wall survey for years. There are parts that are based on government data, but even then, they don't look at the data in detail.

For example. They look at infant mortality rates. What they never account for is that the US and the UK, as well as many other countries, do not count infant mortality the same. In the US, if it is born at all, it is counted. In the UK, if it is too premature, they don't count it.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

So even those numbers are completely dishonest. The whole report is crap.

If you had read the study you would have your answer.
Read the friggin'' study instead of jumping to your own biased conclusions.

I did. It doesn't.

I googled that and found your claim to be outrageous... here is a link I found by googling your own words and it doesn't match what you claim. Ther is no comparison between US and UK ER death rates. The report says people who have a heart attack in the hospital are 3 times more likely to die than those who have one at home and are transported to the hospital.

Fine, I'll start reposting everything that is already in this thread. For the record, heart attack data doesn't suggest much. Think about it.... people in a hospital are already under physical stress from being ill, and likely from treatment. Thus if you have a heart attack, it is more likely to be fatal. Some treatments are even known for causing heart attacks, because for the lack of any better treatment, they have to take the risk.

Moreover, your link itself says that people in the hospital are generally older, and sicker, than those at home. Thus they logically are more likely to die from a heart attack, than those at home.

Of course the biggest missing data, is any comparison to any other system. Even if the data you cite is accurate... you have no idea if the UK system is any better, because they didn't research that. If you don't know what the numbers are for any other system, then your entire link is completely pointless. The UK system could have 4 times more likely.

Good grief. You people don't even read your own sources of information.

Not according to the CF study. the opinions of physicians and patients coupled with research data from the W.H.O. and Centers for Disease Control is more than enough to validate the study.

NHS hospital waiting time figures worst in seven years
Average waiting time for GP appointment increases 30% in a year
NHS hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment | Daily Mail Online
NHS 'in perpetual winter of Narnia' as waiting list reaches record 3.9m

Waiting time targets missed, bed blocking at record levels, and medical leaders say system is close to breaking down

Ok, so you posted your opinion. I posted my facts. Which one wins? Facts or opinion?

Keep in mind, this is the UK system which your lame Commonwealth Fund "survey" said was the best.

US has high rate of preventable dearths

Do you know how they come up with those numbers? They determine how many people died from specific illnesses, and they declare those illnesses could be cured. Thus they are preventable.

The problem is... does the hospital have any control over how many people get the illness to begin with? No. No they don't. So what does the number of deaths have to do with anything?

For example. You have two populations. One group 1,000 women get breast cancer. The other group only 90 women get breast cancer.

In the first group, the health care system treats and heals 90%. So 900 women are healed and cured, and 100 die.

In the second group, they give the women a bunk bed, and wet wipe, and they all die. 0 healed, 90 die.

Now when you look at "preventable deaths"... it would only show that the first country had 100 women had preventable deaths, while in the second only 90 had preventable deaths.

Yet, the first health care system healed 900 people, and the second healed no one. This is why you look at survival rates, not mortality rates. Mortality is dependent primarily on the incident rate. How many get the illness. Survival rate exclusively looks at the ability of the system to heal the disease.

So the Japanese incidence rate of cancer is a fraction of the US.

See the difference? If you ask any patient, do you want to be in a country with low preventable deaths, or in a country with high survival rates, they'll choose a country with high survival rates.

So do you want to be in the US with a 74% survival rate for all the cancers above? Or Japan with a 63% survival rate, but lower "preventable deaths" or the UK with a 52% survival rate, and lower "preventable deaths".

Anyone that looks at mortality and death rates, is not looking at the quality of the care. They are looking more at incident rates. If you want to know the quality of the care, you have to look at survival rates. That is the one and only standard that looks at the ability of the health care system to identify the illness.... treat the illness... cure the illness, and have patients survive.

But that is the one factor that left-wingers can not look at it... because doing so shows how badly socialized care fails.

The US does have the most expensive healthcare in the world but the socialists have the best quality at a much lower cost!

No, they don't, and I just conclusively proved it.

 

[JQPublic1]

Once again, this is baffling. Maybe you missed the several posts in this thread already where I showed conclusively that UK has more deaths, less quality, more wait times, and worse health care outcomes than the US routinely.... and this is from the UK government itself among other sources.

If you posted that information without a link, I probably dismissed it as pure fabrication.

Yet you post a survey.... notice....a survey.... not a fact based assessment of health care outcomes, but a survey that says the UK's health care is much better than the US.

The Commonwealth Fund's survey is but one part of a far more comprehensive study involving research databases from the World Heath Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.

Do you need me to go back to the other posts and copy&paste them here all over again, to show you the difference between fact and opinion?

Just post the links to your sources. Link less posts have no value here.

By the way, look at the measures for your survey.

Healthy lives: What does health care have to do with healthy lives? If I choose to drink alcohol non-stop until I have liver failure... is that the hospitals fault? If we have gov-health care would my liver magically work better?

If you had read the study you would have your answer.

Equity: So if everyone dies equally, that means its better care? I can rent a gym, put a dozens bunk beds in the gym, give everyone a wet wipe.... and that is equal care. Does that mean it's good care?

Read the friggin'' study instead of jumping to your own biased conclusions.

Efficiency: Based on what? French and UK patients are 'less likely'..... to visit the ER for conditions that a doctor would do. Great, but that doesn't mean they have better outcomes. They don't. Even the UK's own government report says that ER patients are 3 times more likely to die, than US patients.

I googled that and found your claim to be outrageous... here is a link I found by googling your own words and it doesn't match what you claim. Ther is no comparison between US and UK ER death rates. The report says people who have a heart attack in the hospital are 3 times more likely to die than those who have one at home and are transported to the hospital.


Heart attack patients in hospital THREE TIMES more likely to die than those who have one at home | Daily Mail Online

BTW, the US was dead last in outcomes according to the study!

Access: Yeah, access to what? A waiting list? UK patients routinely wait years for basic health care and treatment. They have more access to a list. Great. Again, what are the health care outcomes? Which place are you more likely to actually be treated and survive? The US. By every single statically measure... not opinion based survey... the US has better outcomes.

Not according to the CF study. the opinions of physicians and patients coupled with research data from the W.H.O. and Centers for Disease Control is more than enough to validate the study.

Over and over and over, this survey you posted, measure everything BUT survival rates and outcomes. They look at how "equal" it is... and how much "access" they have... and how "efficient" they supposedly are.... and how "healthy" they live.....

You need to read the entire study. It does address outcomes and the US fared poorly. Once again, the survey of Physicians and patients was only a part of an in depth data analysis. Ands just to make you more uncomfortable, here is an earlier study that does not include a survey. This one is based on research and data analysis only!:

Spoiler: US has high rate of preventable dearths

The Commonwealth Fund Mission:



The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.





About the Study

The authors use mortality and population data from the World Health Organization’s mortality database (France, Germany, and the U.K.) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.). They looked at rates of amenable mortality for people under age 65, as well as for those between ages 65 and 74, from conditions like treatable cancer, diabetes, infections, and heart disease.







Key Findings

• Between 1999 and 2007, rates of potentially preventable deaths among men under age 75 fell by 18.5 percent in the U.S. During the same time period, the rate declined by 37 percent in the U.K., by 28 percent in France, and by 24 percent in Germany (2006).
• For women, the rates fell by 17.5 percent in the U.S., 32 percent in the U.K., and 23 percent in both France and Germany.
• In 2007, amenable mortality was highest in the U.S., with rates almost twice those seen in France, which had the lowest level of the four countries studied.
• The pace of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other countries for the two age groups examined—individuals under age 65 and those ages 65 to 74. However, the lag was most pronounced among American men and women younger than 65. These individuals are more likely to be uninsured than are Medicare-eligible Americans age 65 and older. They are also more likely to be uninsured than their European counterparts, who have access to universal coverage.

The Bottom Line

Rates of potentially preventable death were highest in the United States, compared with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. In addition, the rate of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other three countries.

In Amenable Mortality—Deaths Avoidable Through Health Care—Progress in the U.S. Lags That of Three European Countries

And don't start with that "we have more automobile accidents" BS. The study is controlled for people having specific ailments that killed them . The US had the highest rates for preventable deaths in the study!

but they conveniently miss the crucial number one, key fundamental primary purpose of health care..... What are the chances you will be diagnosed, treated, and cured, and survive your illness? What about that measurement?

Click the spoiler to find out!

And the reason they avoid that, is really simple.... because every single time you look at those numbers.... you have a better chance of being healed, and surviving your illness in the US, more than any other country on the face of the Earth.

Not according to the experts over at the Commonwealth Foundation and they have the data to back it up in all the known methodologies including surveys of physicans and their patients, research and data analyses of key heath databases of W.H.O ad other major health agencies.. The US does have the most expensive healthcare in the world but the socialists have the best quality at a much lower cost!

I posted links to each and every single one of my claims, including reports from the UK government itself.

If you dismissed documented fact, that makes you incompetent to discuss this topic. Moving on.

The Commonwealth Fund's survey is but one part of a far more comprehensive study involving research databases from the World Heath Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.

I have followed the Mirror Mirror on the Wall survey for years. There are parts that are based on government data, but even then, they don't look at the data in detail.

For example. They look at infant mortality rates. What they never account for is that the US and the UK, as well as many other countries, do not count infant mortality the same. In the US, if it is born at all, it is counted. In the UK, if it is too premature, they don't count it.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

So even those numbers are completely dishonest. The whole report is crap.

If you had read the study you would have your answer.
Read the friggin'' study instead of jumping to your own biased conclusions.

I did. It doesn't.

I googled that and found your claim to be outrageous... here is a link I found by googling your own words and it doesn't match what you claim. Ther is no comparison between US and UK ER death rates. The report says people who have a heart attack in the hospital are 3 times more likely to die than those who have one at home and are transported to the hospital.

Fine, I'll start reposting everything that is already in this thread. For the record, heart attack data doesn't suggest much. Think about it.... people in a hospital are already under physical stress from being ill, and likely from treatment. Thus if you have a heart attack, it is more likely to be fatal. Some treatments are even known for causing heart attacks, because for the lack of any better treatment, they have to take the risk.

Moreover, your link itself says that people in the hospital are generally older, and sicker, than those at home. Thus they logically are more likely to die from a heart attack, than those at home.

Of course the biggest missing data, is any comparison to any other system. Even if the data you cite is accurate... you have no idea if the UK system is any better, because they didn't research that. If you don't know what the numbers are for any other system, then your entire link is completely pointless. The UK system could have 4 times more likely.

Good grief. You people don't even read your own sources of information.

Not according to the CF study. the opinions of physicians and patients coupled with research data from the W.H.O. and Centers for Disease Control is more than enough to validate the study.

NHS hospital waiting time figures worst in seven years
Average waiting time for GP appointment increases 30% in a year
NHS hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment | Daily Mail Online
NHS 'in perpetual winter of Narnia' as waiting list reaches record 3.9m

Waiting time targets missed, bed blocking at record levels, and medical leaders say system is close to breaking down

Ok, so you posted your opinion. I posted my facts. Which one wins? Facts or opinion?

Keep in mind, this is the UK system which your lame Commonwealth Fund "survey" said was the best.

US has high rate of preventable dearths

Do you know how they come up with those numbers? They determine how many people died from specific illnesses, and they declare those illnesses could be cured. Thus they are preventable.

The problem is... does the hospital have any control over how many people get the illness to begin with? No. No they don't. So what does the number of deaths have to do with anything?

For example. You have two populations. One group 1,000 women get breast cancer. The other group only 90 women get breast cancer.

In the first group, the health care system treats and heals 90%. So 900 women are healed and cured, and 100 die.

In the second group, they give the women a bunk bed, and wet wipe, and they all die. 0 healed, 90 die.

Now when you look at "preventable deaths"... it would only show that the first country had 100 women had preventable deaths, while in the second only 90 had preventable deaths.

Yet, the first health care system healed 900 people, and the second healed no one. This is why you look at survival rates, not mortality rates. Mortality is dependent primarily on the incident rate. How many get the illness. Survival rate exclusively looks at the ability of the system to heal the disease.
View attachment 114361
So the Japanese incidence rate of cancer is a fraction of the US.

View attachment 114362

See the difference? If you ask any patient, do you want to be in a country with low preventable deaths, or in a country with high survival rates, they'll choose a country with high survival rates.

So do you want to be in the US with a 74% survival rate for all the cancers above? Or Japan with a 63% survival rate, but lower "preventable deaths" or the UK with a 52% survival rate, and lower "preventable deaths".

Anyone that looks at mortality and death rates, is not looking at the quality of the care. They are looking more at incident rates. If you want to know the quality of the care, you have to look at survival rates. That is the one and only standard that looks at the ability of the health care system to identify the illness.... treat the illness... cure the illness, and have patients survive.

But that is the one factor that left-wingers can not look at it... because doing so shows how badly socialized care fails.

The US does have the most expensive healthcare in the world but the socialists have the best quality at a much lower cost!

No, they don't, and I just conclusively proved it.

You Brayed and squealed that my premise is based on a survey and that your premise is based on facts. Hmm, as if surveys can't be factual? If you really believe that why did you post links to sites using surveys to determine average waiting times? This is one of your links:



Average waiting time for GP appointment increases 30% in a year

EXCLUSIVE The average waiting time for a routine GP appointment has almost hit two weeks, a Pulse survey has revealed.

Such duplicity cannot go unrewarded. You decry the use of surveys and then link to one with only 831 respondents. I hear by heap upon you all the scorn and derision your thoughtless posts deserve. When you described your essay as fact, did you really mean fax? Or, perhaps, you had a change of heart about surveys being fact finding tools without telling us.


US has high rate of preventable deaths:



Your response to this was hilarious. You don't know statistics so you made up your own theory about how Medical professionals with doctorate degrees came up with their "numbers." Frequencies per 1000 or 100,000 apply no matter how large the target groups are in comparison to one another. Your breast cancer chart shows the USA has 92 cases per 100,000 people and Japan has only 34 per 100,000 people.



The Concord Study of 2008

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)61442-8/fulltext?rss=yes

Survival rates are inappropriate statistics for the comparison of countries that differ in the extent they screen for different cancers. To understand why, it is helpful to know how the 5-year survival statistic is calculated: the number of patients diagnosed with cancer still alive 5 years after diagnosis divided by the number of all patients diagnosed with cancer. The key term to notice in the calculation is diagnosed, which appears in the numerator and denominator of the survival statistic. By definition, screening detects cancer at a microscopic state, long before it causes symptoms. Because of this property, screening inflates the survival statistic in two ways: firstly, by prolonging the period in which a patient is known to have cancer (lead-time bias), and secondly, by including people with non-progressive cancer (overdiagnosis bias).2 However, for the 20 most common solid tumours in the USA, the inflation in 5-year survival rates has no correlation with a decrease in mortality rates3—a fact unknown to most medical professionals offering screening.4 Because of lead-time and overdiagnosis bias, differences in 5-year survival rates between health systems differing in screening uptake can rather be an artifact of the extent of screening than a valid proof of improved cancer control. Such a proof can only come from a reduction of cancer-specific mortality rates,5 the denominator of which includes all (not just diagnosed) people in the investigated screening and non-screening groups, resulting in the rates not being dependent on country-specific diagnostic procedures.



But here is where the rubber meets the road. Prior to the ACA being implemented in the USA uninsured poor people and underinsured middle classed people didn't seek medical prevention testing due to the high costs of seeing a doctor on a regular basis. So it is crucial to know which US populations those survival rates represent and which groups aren't counted. The narrative highlighted in blue above is aimed at that reality and would account for the percentages in your 5 year survival chart. Socialized medicine would afford more citizens of any age or income bracket to get screened earlier, even considering the waiting period for non emergency appointments. In 2008 poor or uninsured US citizens had no waiting periods for screening appointments...they just didn't go to clinics or doctors becasue they could not afford it! And now, the GOP, at the behest of selfish people like you, want to turn back the hands of time and return to that kind of medical triage based on ability to pay.


The morbid implications of your paradigm:


One of your chief objections to socialized medicine is longer wait times to get an appointment for non urgent visits to your doctor. We both know the reasons for wait time increases when socialized medicine is implemented don't we? Poor or uninsured Americans will get in your way. well 'scuse me but isn't that what it is all about? Equal access for all?

The problem I have with you Repub-LIE-cons is your holier than thou attitudes whereas you believe your lives are more valuable than those less fortunate than you are. You have no sympathy for poor people regardless of how they became that way. From what I have read. You would just as soon as see them die in the street than to interfere in your quick access to healthcare because they want the same care you and their Congressman gets.

 

[Andylusion]

Once again, this is baffling. Maybe you missed the several posts in this thread already where I showed conclusively that UK has more deaths, less quality, more wait times, and worse health care outcomes than the US routinely.... and this is from the UK government itself among other sources.

If you posted that information without a link, I probably dismissed it as pure fabrication.

Yet you post a survey.... notice....a survey.... not a fact based assessment of health care outcomes, but a survey that says the UK's health care is much better than the US.

The Commonwealth Fund's survey is but one part of a far more comprehensive study involving research databases from the World Heath Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.

Do you need me to go back to the other posts and copy&paste them here all over again, to show you the difference between fact and opinion?

Just post the links to your sources. Link less posts have no value here.

By the way, look at the measures for your survey.

Healthy lives: What does health care have to do with healthy lives? If I choose to drink alcohol non-stop until I have liver failure... is that the hospitals fault? If we have gov-health care would my liver magically work better?

If you had read the study you would have your answer.

Equity: So if everyone dies equally, that means its better care? I can rent a gym, put a dozens bunk beds in the gym, give everyone a wet wipe.... and that is equal care. Does that mean it's good care?

Read the friggin'' study instead of jumping to your own biased conclusions.

Efficiency: Based on what? French and UK patients are 'less likely'..... to visit the ER for conditions that a doctor would do. Great, but that doesn't mean they have better outcomes. They don't. Even the UK's own government report says that ER patients are 3 times more likely to die, than US patients.

I googled that and found your claim to be outrageous... here is a link I found by googling your own words and it doesn't match what you claim. Ther is no comparison between US and UK ER death rates. The report says people who have a heart attack in the hospital are 3 times more likely to die than those who have one at home and are transported to the hospital.


Heart attack patients in hospital THREE TIMES more likely to die than those who have one at home | Daily Mail Online

BTW, the US was dead last in outcomes according to the study!

Access: Yeah, access to what? A waiting list? UK patients routinely wait years for basic health care and treatment. They have more access to a list. Great. Again, what are the health care outcomes? Which place are you more likely to actually be treated and survive? The US. By every single statically measure... not opinion based survey... the US has better outcomes.

Not according to the CF study. the opinions of physicians and patients coupled with research data from the W.H.O. and Centers for Disease Control is more than enough to validate the study.

Over and over and over, this survey you posted, measure everything BUT survival rates and outcomes. They look at how "equal" it is... and how much "access" they have... and how "efficient" they supposedly are.... and how "healthy" they live.....

You need to read the entire study. It does address outcomes and the US fared poorly. Once again, the survey of Physicians and patients was only a part of an in depth data analysis. Ands just to make you more uncomfortable, here is an earlier study that does not include a survey. This one is based on research and data analysis only!:

Spoiler: US has high rate of preventable dearths

The Commonwealth Fund Mission:



The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.





About the Study

The authors use mortality and population data from the World Health Organization’s mortality database (France, Germany, and the U.K.) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.). They looked at rates of amenable mortality for people under age 65, as well as for those between ages 65 and 74, from conditions like treatable cancer, diabetes, infections, and heart disease.







Key Findings

• Between 1999 and 2007, rates of potentially preventable deaths among men under age 75 fell by 18.5 percent in the U.S. During the same time period, the rate declined by 37 percent in the U.K., by 28 percent in France, and by 24 percent in Germany (2006).
• For women, the rates fell by 17.5 percent in the U.S., 32 percent in the U.K., and 23 percent in both France and Germany.
• In 2007, amenable mortality was highest in the U.S., with rates almost twice those seen in France, which had the lowest level of the four countries studied.
• The pace of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other countries for the two age groups examined—individuals under age 65 and those ages 65 to 74. However, the lag was most pronounced among American men and women younger than 65. These individuals are more likely to be uninsured than are Medicare-eligible Americans age 65 and older. They are also more likely to be uninsured than their European counterparts, who have access to universal coverage.

The Bottom Line

Rates of potentially preventable death were highest in the United States, compared with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. In addition, the rate of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other three countries.

In Amenable Mortality—Deaths Avoidable Through Health Care—Progress in the U.S. Lags That of Three European Countries

And don't start with that "we have more automobile accidents" BS. The study is controlled for people having specific ailments that killed them . The US had the highest rates for preventable deaths in the study!

but they conveniently miss the crucial number one, key fundamental primary purpose of health care..... What are the chances you will be diagnosed, treated, and cured, and survive your illness? What about that measurement?

Click the spoiler to find out!

And the reason they avoid that, is really simple.... because every single time you look at those numbers.... you have a better chance of being healed, and surviving your illness in the US, more than any other country on the face of the Earth.

Not according to the experts over at the Commonwealth Foundation and they have the data to back it up in all the known methodologies including surveys of physicans and their patients, research and data analyses of key heath databases of W.H.O ad other major health agencies.. The US does have the most expensive healthcare in the world but the socialists have the best quality at a much lower cost!

I posted links to each and every single one of my claims, including reports from the UK government itself.

If you dismissed documented fact, that makes you incompetent to discuss this topic. Moving on.

The Commonwealth Fund's survey is but one part of a far more comprehensive study involving research databases from the World Heath Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.

I have followed the Mirror Mirror on the Wall survey for years. There are parts that are based on government data, but even then, they don't look at the data in detail.

For example. They look at infant mortality rates. What they never account for is that the US and the UK, as well as many other countries, do not count infant mortality the same. In the US, if it is born at all, it is counted. In the UK, if it is too premature, they don't count it.

Premature baby 'left to die' by doctors after mother gives birth just two days before 22-week care limit | Daily Mail Online

'Doctors told me it was against the rules to save my premature baby'

So even those numbers are completely dishonest. The whole report is crap.

If you had read the study you would have your answer.
Read the friggin'' study instead of jumping to your own biased conclusions.

I did. It doesn't.

I googled that and found your claim to be outrageous... here is a link I found by googling your own words and it doesn't match what you claim. Ther is no comparison between US and UK ER death rates. The report says people who have a heart attack in the hospital are 3 times more likely to die than those who have one at home and are transported to the hospital.

Fine, I'll start reposting everything that is already in this thread. For the record, heart attack data doesn't suggest much. Think about it.... people in a hospital are already under physical stress from being ill, and likely from treatment. Thus if you have a heart attack, it is more likely to be fatal. Some treatments are even known for causing heart attacks, because for the lack of any better treatment, they have to take the risk.

Moreover, your link itself says that people in the hospital are generally older, and sicker, than those at home. Thus they logically are more likely to die from a heart attack, than those at home.

Of course the biggest missing data, is any comparison to any other system. Even if the data you cite is accurate... you have no idea if the UK system is any better, because they didn't research that. If you don't know what the numbers are for any other system, then your entire link is completely pointless. The UK system could have 4 times more likely.

Good grief. You people don't even read your own sources of information.

Not according to the CF study. the opinions of physicians and patients coupled with research data from the W.H.O. and Centers for Disease Control is more than enough to validate the study.

NHS hospital waiting time figures worst in seven years
Average waiting time for GP appointment increases 30% in a year
NHS hospital waiting lists at seven-year high as 3.4m need treatment | Daily Mail Online
NHS 'in perpetual winter of Narnia' as waiting list reaches record 3.9m

Waiting time targets missed, bed blocking at record levels, and medical leaders say system is close to breaking down

Ok, so you posted your opinion. I posted my facts. Which one wins? Facts or opinion?

Keep in mind, this is the UK system which your lame Commonwealth Fund "survey" said was the best.

US has high rate of preventable dearths

Do you know how they come up with those numbers? They determine how many people died from specific illnesses, and they declare those illnesses could be cured. Thus they are preventable.

The problem is... does the hospital have any control over how many people get the illness to begin with? No. No they don't. So what does the number of deaths have to do with anything?

For example. You have two populations. One group 1,000 women get breast cancer. The other group only 90 women get breast cancer.

In the first group, the health care system treats and heals 90%. So 900 women are healed and cured, and 100 die.

In the second group, they give the women a bunk bed, and wet wipe, and they all die. 0 healed, 90 die.

Now when you look at "preventable deaths"... it would only show that the first country had 100 women had preventable deaths, while in the second only 90 had preventable deaths.

Yet, the first health care system healed 900 people, and the second healed no one. This is why you look at survival rates, not mortality rates. Mortality is dependent primarily on the incident rate. How many get the illness. Survival rate exclusively looks at the ability of the system to heal the disease.
View attachment 114361
So the Japanese incidence rate of cancer is a fraction of the US.

View attachment 114362

See the difference? If you ask any patient, do you want to be in a country with low preventable deaths, or in a country with high survival rates, they'll choose a country with high survival rates.

So do you want to be in the US with a 74% survival rate for all the cancers above? Or Japan with a 63% survival rate, but lower "preventable deaths" or the UK with a 52% survival rate, and lower "preventable deaths".

Anyone that looks at mortality and death rates, is not looking at the quality of the care. They are looking more at incident rates. If you want to know the quality of the care, you have to look at survival rates. That is the one and only standard that looks at the ability of the health care system to identify the illness.... treat the illness... cure the illness, and have patients survive.

But that is the one factor that left-wingers can not look at it... because doing so shows how badly socialized care fails.

The US does have the most expensive healthcare in the world but the socialists have the best quality at a much lower cost!

No, they don't, and I just conclusively proved it.

You Brayed and squealed that my premise is based on a survey and that your premise is based on facts. Hmm, as if surveys can't be factual? If you really believe that why did you post links to sites using surveys to determine average waiting times? This is one of your links:



Average waiting time for GP appointment increases 30% in a year

EXCLUSIVE The average waiting time for a routine GP appointment has almost hit two weeks, a Pulse survey has revealed.

Such duplicity cannot go unrewarded. You decry the use of surveys and then link to one with only 831 respondents. I hear by heap upon you all the scorn and derision your thoughtless posts deserve. When you described your essay as fact, did you really mean fax? Or, perhaps, you had a change of heart about surveys being fact finding tools without telling us.


US has high rate of preventable deaths:



Your response to this was hilarious. You don't know statistics so you made up your own theory about how Medical professionals with doctorate degrees came up with their "numbers." Frequencies per 1000 or 100,000 apply no matter how large the target groups are in comparison to one another. Your breast cancer chart shows the USA has 92 cases per 100,000 people and Japan has only 34 per 100,000 people.



The Concord Study of 2008

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)61442-8/fulltext?rss=yes

Survival rates are inappropriate statistics for the comparison of countries that differ in the extent they screen for different cancers. To understand why, it is helpful to know how the 5-year survival statistic is calculated: the number of patients diagnosed with cancer still alive 5 years after diagnosis divided by the number of all patients diagnosed with cancer. The key term to notice in the calculation is diagnosed, which appears in the numerator and denominator of the survival statistic. By definition, screening detects cancer at a microscopic state, long before it causes symptoms. Because of this property, screening inflates the survival statistic in two ways: firstly, by prolonging the period in which a patient is known to have cancer (lead-time bias), and secondly, by including people with non-progressive cancer (overdiagnosis bias).2 However, for the 20 most common solid tumours in the USA, the inflation in 5-year survival rates has no correlation with a decrease in mortality rates3—a fact unknown to most medical professionals offering screening.4 Because of lead-time and overdiagnosis bias, differences in 5-year survival rates between health systems differing in screening uptake can rather be an artifact of the extent of screening than a valid proof of improved cancer control. Such a proof can only come from a reduction of cancer-specific mortality rates,5 the denominator of which includes all (not just diagnosed) people in the investigated screening and non-screening groups, resulting in the rates not being dependent on country-specific diagnostic procedures.



But here is where the rubber meets the road. Prior to the ACA being implemented in the USA uninsured poor people and underinsured middle classed people didn't seek medical prevention testing due to the high costs of seeing a doctor on a regular basis. So it is crucial to know which US populations those survival rates represent and which groups aren't counted. The narrative highlighted in blue above is aimed at that reality and would account for the percentages in your 5 year survival chart. Socialized medicine would afford more citizens of any age or income bracket to get screened earlier, even considering the waiting period for non emergency appointments. In 2008 poor or uninsured US citizens had no waiting periods for screening appointments...they just didn't go to clinics or doctors becasue they could not afford it! And now, the GOP, at the behest of selfish people like you, want to turn back the hands of time and return to that kind of medical triage based on ability to pay.


The morbid implications of your paradigm:


One of your chief objections to socialized medicine is longer wait times to get an appointment for non urgent visits to your doctor. We both know the reasons for wait time increases when socialized medicine is implemented don't we? Poor or uninsured Americans will get in your way. well 'scuse me but isn't that what it is all about? Equal access for all?

The problem I have with you Repub-LIE-cons is your holier than thou attitudes whereas you believe your lives are more valuable than those less fortunate than you are. You have no sympathy for poor people regardless of how they became that way. From what I have read. You would just as soon as see them die in the street than to interfere in your quick access to healthcare because they want the same care you and their Congressman gets.

My links were to statistical facts. Your link was to a survey of opinion. There is a difference.

Average waiting time for GP appointment increases 30% in a year

This is entirely true. Our system has become more and more socialized, so of course we are not starting to see the beginnings of the same problems experienced elsewhere in the world.

Your response to this was hilarious. You don't know statistics so you made up your own theory about how Medical professionals with doctorate degrees came up with their "numbers." Frequencies per 1000 or 100,000 apply no matter how large the target groups are in comparison to one another. Your breast cancer chart shows the USA has 92 cases per 100,000 people and Japan has only 34 per 100,000 people.

Ok.... you didn't make a point. You repeated to me, my own evidence in support of my claims.

So you agree with me, or you don't know how to make a point, not sure which.

Are you denying that groups that have a higher incidence rate, will naturally have a higher mortality rate? Are you suggesting that Japan with only 34 incidence of breast cancer, compared to the US 92 incidences of breast cancer, will not naturally have a lower 'preventable death by breast cancer' than the US, regardless of the quality of care?

However, for the 20 most common solid tumours in the USA, the inflation in 5-year survival rates has no correlation with a decrease in mortality rates3—a fact unknown to most medical professionals offering screening.

Now that is fascinating. For the last 20 years, the left-wing has been screaming that if only we had socialized health care, then 'preventative medicine' would be free, such as breast cancer screenings, and that with free preventative care, then people would die less.

Now you are telling me that cancer screenings do nothing, and all those medicare and medicaid paid for cancer screenings are completely useless and a waste of tax payer money?

Really? That's your position?

Doesn't that position prove that socialized health care will cost more, and waste money?

Beyond that, I already said what you just posted. 5-year survival rates SHOULD NOT have any correlation with mortality rates. Mortality rates dependent on incidences. If the number of people who get cancer goes down, the mortality rate will drop. If the number of people who get cancer goes up, the mortality rate will increase.

If the survival rate stays steady at 90%, as incidences go up, mortality will go up, and as incidences go down, mortality goes down.

One of your chief objections to socialized medicine is longer wait times to get an appointment for non urgent visits to your doctor

No no... fail. You made up the red herring that I said non-urgent.

Wait times in socialized care system, go up for EVERYTHING. Not just non-urgent.

There's a reason why in ERs in socialized hospitals, people have died while waiting over 13 hours.

And this claim about the poor 'getting in our way'.... well that's why middle class people, and especially the rich, fly to other countries for treatment, while the poor simply die.

That's better in your world?

 

[NCC1701]

Once again, this is baffling. Maybe you missed the several posts in this thread already where I showed conclusively that UK has more deaths, less quality, more wait times, and worse health care outcomes than the US routinely.... and this is from the UK government itself among other sources.

If you posted that information without a link, I probably dismissed it as pure fabrication.

Yet you post a survey.... notice....a survey.... not a fact based assessment of health care outcomes, but a survey that says the UK's health care is much better than the US.

The Commonwealth Fund's survey is but one part of a far more comprehensive study involving research databases from the World Heath Organization and the Centers for Disease Control.

Do you need me to go back to the other posts and copy&paste them here all over again, to show you the difference between fact and opinion?

Just post the links to your sources. Link less posts have no value here.

By the way, look at the measures for your survey.

Healthy lives: What does health care have to do with healthy lives? If I choose to drink alcohol non-stop until I have liver failure... is that the hospitals fault? If we have gov-health care would my liver magically work better?

If you had read the study you would have your answer.

Equity: So if everyone dies equally, that means its better care? I can rent a gym, put a dozens bunk beds in the gym, give everyone a wet wipe.... and that is equal care. Does that mean it's good care?

Read the friggin'' study instead of jumping to your own biased conclusions.

Efficiency: Based on what? French and UK patients are 'less likely'..... to visit the ER for conditions that a doctor would do. Great, but that doesn't mean they have better outcomes. They don't. Even the UK's own government report says that ER patients are 3 times more likely to die, than US patients.

I googled that and found your claim to be outrageous... here is a link I found by googling your own words and it doesn't match what you claim. Ther is no comparison between US and UK ER death rates. The report says people who have a heart attack in the hospital are 3 times more likely to die than those who have one at home and are transported to the hospital.


Heart attack patients in hospital THREE TIMES more likely to die than those who have one at home | Daily Mail Online

BTW, the US was dead last in outcomes according to the study!

Access: Yeah, access to what? A waiting list? UK patients routinely wait years for basic health care and treatment. They have more access to a list. Great. Again, what are the health care outcomes? Which place are you more likely to actually be treated and survive? The US. By every single statically measure... not opinion based survey... the US has better outcomes.

Not according to the CF study. the opinions of physicians and patients coupled with research data from the W.H.O. and Centers for Disease Control is more than enough to validate the study.

Over and over and over, this survey you posted, measure everything BUT survival rates and outcomes. They look at how "equal" it is... and how much "access" they have... and how "efficient" they supposedly are.... and how "healthy" they live.....

You need to read the entire study. It does address outcomes and the US fared poorly. Once again, the survey of Physicians and patients was only a part of an in depth data analysis. Ands just to make you more uncomfortable, here is an earlier study that does not include a survey. This one is based on research and data analysis only!:

Spoiler: US has high rate of preventable dearths

The Commonwealth Fund Mission:



The mission of The Commonwealth Fund is to promote a high-performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable, including low-income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults.





About the Study

The authors use mortality and population data from the World Health Organization’s mortality database (France, Germany, and the U.K.) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U.S.). They looked at rates of amenable mortality for people under age 65, as well as for those between ages 65 and 74, from conditions like treatable cancer, diabetes, infections, and heart disease.







Key Findings

• Between 1999 and 2007, rates of potentially preventable deaths among men under age 75 fell by 18.5 percent in the U.S. During the same time period, the rate declined by 37 percent in the U.K., by 28 percent in France, and by 24 percent in Germany (2006).
• For women, the rates fell by 17.5 percent in the U.S., 32 percent in the U.K., and 23 percent in both France and Germany.
• In 2007, amenable mortality was highest in the U.S., with rates almost twice those seen in France, which had the lowest level of the four countries studied.
• The pace of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other countries for the two age groups examined—individuals under age 65 and those ages 65 to 74. However, the lag was most pronounced among American men and women younger than 65. These individuals are more likely to be uninsured than are Medicare-eligible Americans age 65 and older. They are also more likely to be uninsured than their European counterparts, who have access to universal coverage.

The Bottom Line

Rates of potentially preventable death were highest in the United States, compared with France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. In addition, the rate of improvement was slower in the U.S. than in the other three countries.

In Amenable Mortality—Deaths Avoidable Through Health Care—Progress in the U.S. Lags That of Three European Countries

And don't start with that "we have more automobile accidents" BS. The study is controlled for people having specific ailments that killed them . The US had the highest rates for preventable deaths in the study!

but they conveniently miss the crucial number one, key fundamental primary purpose of health care..... What are the chances you will be diagnosed, treated, and cured, and survive your illness? What about that measurement?

Click the spoiler to find out!

And the reason they avoid that, is really simple.... because every single time you look at those numbers.... you have a better chance of being healed, and surviving your illness in the US, more than any other country on the face of the Earth.

Not according to the experts over at the Commonwealth Foundation and they have the data to back it up in all the known methodologies including surveys of physicans and their patients, research and data analyses of key heath databases of W.H.O ad other major health agencies.. The US does have the most expensive healthcare in the world but the socialists have the best quality at a much lower cost!

the last commonwealth study ranked Britain number 1 in just about everything but second last in healthy lives without even blinking at the contradiction

here, this lady below does a fine job at ripping your vaunted study, I'll let her most of the talking. Pretty funny that one would conclude that Sweden and Norway really suck at quality but have great health care systems. The US ranks fifth in quality, ahead of Norway and Sweden according to your study, so what the hell are you bitching about quality for? Canada sucks just as bad as the US overall (LOL) but they have your holy grail single payer. France has shitty access, but they are very healthy (high outcomes). You chose a really poor study to back your claims as in fact it shoots down the liberal platform, all of the variables that set the US down in ranking have to do with cost and equity, not the quality of the care itself, and when one does have crappy access and quality as in France you can be healthier for it.

Digging deeper into the Commonwealth Fund health rankings
".....Except, one thing in that picture looks very peculiar. The UK, the poster child of frugal and immaculate perfection, scored almost as bad as we did in the only domain that can be regarded as an outcome: health. The bon vivant French people, with the worst access to care and horrific patient-centeredness, seem to enjoy the healthiest lives of all (and Jefferson is finally vindicated). Looking further, it seems that Sweden, where care is of abysmal quality, but most equitable and efficient, came in second in healthy lives and third overall. Can something even be simultaneously of low quality and very efficient? Can a country have dangerous, ineffective care, like Norway, and still be ranked comfortably in the middle of the pack? For inquiring minds of the confused variety, the study provides more granular data points to peruse, so let’s dive in

.....Let’s dig in a little deeper. The quality domain is divided into four subdomains: effective care, safe care, coordinated care and patient-centeredness. Without debating this particular definition of quality, let’s look at how effectiveness is measured on two axes, preventive care and chronic care, each one assessed based on a series of data points. So for example, the first three prevention measures are:

1. the ease of printing out lists of patients due for preventive care
   
2. patients who received preventive care reminders
   
3. patients routinely sent computerized reminders for preventive and routine care
   

I would call this triple dipping, because the only measure that actually counts here is whether patients received reminders or not, and how they responded, which was not measured at all. Whether it is easy to “print out” lists, or whether people are bombarded with computer calls that nobody picks up the phone for, is irrelevant.

The U.S. was ranked 3rd for patients receiving reminders and 7th for the other two useless measures. The UK ranked 1st for the useless measures and 5th for the mildly pertinent measure. For the remaining preventive measures, dealing with lifestyle advice provided by physicians to their patients, the U.S. ranked 1st and 2nd overall. To assess effectiveness, I would have expected perhaps a ratio of reminders sent, to reminders acted upon by patients, or at least reminders received, instead of an average score for those two, plus some strange measure about printing lists to paper."


The chronic care portion of the effectiveness subdomain illustrates yet another logical flaw in the study. Similar to the preventive care measures, here too the U.S. scores decently on actual chronic care activities, and poorly on ease of producing lists. But the bigger issue is the one measure evaluating cost barriers to adherence, and as expected the U.S. scored poorly on affordability, which is what this measure is all about. It may be fine to blast the U.S. system for being expensive, but to say that we are paying too much for a bad system, while assessing badness based on the system being expensive, is circular logic that should have no place in serious scientific conversation.

Great response but somewhat limited in regards to real substance. You began your attack on the seeming contradiction between the UK's number one ranking in just about every column on the chart ( the one you found in the link I posted) except for "healthy lives." Obviously, you don't respect the CF authors as professionals so you didn't bother to read the accompanying explanation. I'll take the liberty of putting it here where the goats ( and sheep) can get it: (note: after opening spoiler, click again to close it for easier reading of the next issue in this post.)

Spoiler: Healthy Lives, Explained

HEALTHY LIVES

The goal of a well-functioning health care system is to ensure that people lead long, healthy, and productive lives. To measure this dimension, Exhibit 8 includes three outcome indicators, including mortality amenable to health care—that is, deaths that could have been prevented with timely and effective care; infant mortality; and healthy life expectancy.

On the three healthy lives indicators, France ranks highest overall—scoring among the top three coun- tries on each indicator—and Sweden ranks second. The U.S. ranks last on mortality amenable to health care, last on infant mortality, and second-to-last on healthy life expectancy at age 60. Notably, countries’ perfor- mance on these three outcomes indicators did not necessarily align with their ranks on the other dimensions of health system performance. France ranks near the bottom overall, whereas the U.K., which ranks first or second on every other dimension, ranks near the bottom of healthy lives. Unfortunately, scarce cross-nation- ally comparable data on health outcomes limit this dimension to only three indicators. However, the indica- tors that are available demonstrate the health care system to be just one of many factors, including social and economic well-being, that influence the health of a nation.

The finding that the U.S. lags in health outcomes despite spending so much more than other coun- tries on health care echoes the findings in the Institute of Medicine’s 2013 report on the health of the U.S. population, which found the U.S. has worse health and premature death rates in all age groups and at all income levels.18 The wealth of data amassed by the IOM underscores a clear need to focus on improving population health along with the performance of the health care delivery system. Page 25 of link!

View attachment 114360

The "contradiction "was duly noted in the report and explained, but; your focus on it doesn't absolve the pathetic ranking of the US as dead last. Perhaps your focus on THAT glaring disparity would be more beneficial to all of us if you would join in finding the means to reform our expensive also-ran healthcare system. Perhaps the first step would be to address the false news circulating the lie that USA based health care is the best in the world.

Spoiler: QUALITY EXPLAINED:

It is difficult to disentangle the effects of health insurance coverage from the quality of care experi- ences reported by U.S. patients. Comprehensiveness of insurance and stability of coverage are likely to play a role in patients’ access to care and interactions with physicians. We found that insured Americans and higher- income Americans were more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report problems such as not getting recommended tests, treatments, or prescription drugs. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the lack of comprehensive health insurance coverage and the high out-of-pocket costs for care in the U.S., even among the insured and those with above-average incomes. Fragmented coverage and insurance instability undermine efforts in the U.S. to improve care coordination, including the sharing of information among providers. Patients in other countries, in addition, are more likely to have a regular physician and long-time continuity with the same physician.

The Affordable Care Act is designed to ameliorate some of these problems. The establishment of health insurance marketplaces, income-related premium subsidies, minimum essential benefit packages, and new insurance market regulations in 2014 will help extend coverage to an estimated 26 million previously uninsured Americans and contribute greatly to the stability and security of coverage of those who already

The "lady" you used in your response seems intelligent but is she a physician? I think not due to her apparent lack of attention to detail and.or reading comprehension. I do concede she, and you, did add some spice to the commentary and your counter argument was a delight to read.

You said I lack substance but then you addressed almost none of the points I made, none. Then you say that the women 'seems intelligent' but then attacked her credentials.

First she is co-founder of a company that support physicians, secondly I don't care. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy in this case, she made detailed arguments that you tried to hand wave away by saying she is not doctor. Well, so are you a doctor, are you 'qualified' to comment?

So try again, I will shorten the list and make it simpler for you. France has lower access than the US and lower quality of care than the US, but the highest outcomes according to the study and as you said. Logically then you are forced to conclude that access to quality healthcare is not needed for good outcomes, which means universal care is irrelevant. I can't parse it any simpler for you, it is logically impossible to conclude from this study that better healthcare means better outcomes as you are doing. Your own quote from that study : "However, the indicators that are available demonstrate the health care system to be just one of many factors, including social and economic well-being, that influence the health of a nation. "

So what does a rational (i.e. non-liberal person) conclude? The only logical conclusion would be that our health care system is actually better than France, but there are other factors besides health care when it comes to outcomes, so why the hell do you keep harping on health care?


The woman's very last point is salient, you of course ignored it. "It may be fine to blast the U.S. system for being expensive, but to say that we are paying too much for a bad system, while assessing badness based on the system being expensive, is circular logic that should have no place in serious scientific conversation"

The whole idea you are putting forth is rather dumb, one's health and lifespan are more determined by life choices and genetics than any hospital nearby. It is not 'the goal' of a health care system to make sure you live a long life, that is my goal and not the governments.

 

[NCC1701]

But here is where the rubber meets the road. Prior to the ACA being implemented in the USA uninsured poor people and underinsured middle classed people didn't seek medical prevention testing due to the high costs of seeing a doctor on a regular basis. So it is crucial to know which US populations those survival rates represent and which groups aren't counted. The narrative highlighted in blue above is aimed at that reality and would account for the percentages in your 5 year survival chart. Socialized medicine would afford more citizens of any age or income bracket to get screened earlier, even considering the waiting period for non emergency appointments. In 2008 poor or uninsured US citizens had no waiting periods for screening appointments...they just didn't go to clinics or doctors becasue they could not afford it! And now, the GOP, at the behest of selfish people like you, want to turn back the hands of time and return to that kind of medical triage based on ability to pay.

It has and always will be ability to pay. there are private hospitals and private insurance in almost every one of those countries on your list because your grand delusion of egalitarianism is nothing but a liberal religious orgasm. It is a childish demand that the world meets your insecure emotional needs. Danny Williams could pay, so he got what he wanted.


'It's my health, it's my choice,' Danny Williams says

"This is my heart, it's my health, it's my choice."

With these words, Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams defended his decision to hop the border and go under the knife for heart surgery in Florida.

The minimally invasive mitral valve surgery he needed is not available in Newfoundland, he told his province's NTV News channel in the first part of an interview aired last night.

 

[JQPublic1]

My links were to statistical facts. Your link was to a survey of opinion. There is a difference.

There is no need to discuss anything else until I expose your lie for what it is,

Here is one of your links I arbitrarily clicked on:

Average waiting time for GP appointment increases 30% in a year


The word "survey" appears in the first two paragraphs identifying the methodology used to determine your "facts."

The average waiting time for a routine GP appointment has almost hit two weeks, a Pulse survey has revealed.

The survey, answered by 831 respondents, found that the average waiting time for an appointment was just under 13 days – an increase from 10 days last year.

Alright buster, lets see you wriggle out of this one...heh heh heh! Caught you in a lie didn't I???

 

[WheelieAddict]

Social security doesn't work because most baby boomers are now taking more out than they put in. We need to cut them off.

 

[Andylusion]

My links were to statistical facts. Your link was to a survey of opinion. There is a difference.

There is no need to discuss anything else until I expose your lie for what it is,

Here is one of your links I arbitrarily clicked on:

Average waiting time for GP appointment increases 30% in a year


The word "survey" appears in the first two paragraphs identifying the methodology used to determine your "facts."

The average waiting time for a routine GP appointment has almost hit two weeks, a Pulse survey has revealed.

The survey, answered by 831 respondents, found that the average waiting time for an appointment was just under 13 days – an increase from 10 days last year.

Alright buster, lets see you wriggle out of this one...heh heh heh! Caught you in a lie didn't I???

I don't get it... I thought you posted that link to prove that wait times were increasing in the US.

That one says it was about longer waiting times in the UK.

As long as the survey is based on fact, I don't have a problem with a survey. It depends on what the survey is gathering. Is it a survey of statistical facts? Or is it a survey of opinion.

I don't care about your opinion. Or the opinion of some 'expert', or even the opinion of some patient.

If you make a survey that says "How do you like US health care: rate 1 through 10"... that's a survey of opinion. You could have had the absolute best possible care on the planet, and thought it was terrible.

But if you have a survey that says "How many days did you wait between being diagnosed with cancer, and starting treatment: Give the number of days" That's a survey of statistical fact.

Now do you grasp the difference? When people survey how "equal" the care is... that's opinion. When you survey how "fair" the cost was... that's opinion. When you survey how much 'access' to care you have, that's Opinion.

Are you starting to get the difference? I don't care about a survey of opinion. I care about statistical fact. Which is exactly what I said before.

You seem to have gotten hooked on some rant about 'it's a survey'. It's WHAT you are surveying that I have problem with. Surveying opinion is just opinion. Survey the land where you intend to build a home, is a survey of facts.