United States Has The Best Healthcare in the World

[PoliticalChic]

So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General

The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.
WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses
theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre
/press_release/en/index.html.


Here are the rating categories:
1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Does that mean that a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US?

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.

How to judge US healthcare?
life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homocides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels."
Dave Petno » Canadian Doctor Describes Canadian Socialized Medicine

 

[code1211]

I've read about the stats that indicate that Ethiopia is tops in medicine and Americans are dropping dead in the streets for lack of decent health care that the stats are not particularly rigged, but do not account for various factors of health like guns accidents, car accidents, too fatty diets and obesity.

Many of these conditions don't hamper those who have no money, no food and no weapons. They do, however, affect those that do.

The American incidence of Cancers of all descriptions are higher than elsewhere. The survivability of Cancer in the USA is higher than elsewhere once it's been detected. We may assume either that it is not detected as well elsewhere or that, once detected, the victims are put on a short list of those headed for Heaven.

I am not very familiar with the the statistical tracking of illness world wide, but I am familiar with the statistical gathering of information in other disciplines and it gives me just enough doubt to wonder about the accuracy of the data brought forth here.

 

[Care4all]

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.

SO what happened? what went WRONG? Why didn't this happen here PC, as you say it should have....?

 

[Old Rocks]

Lordy, lordy, what fools you people are! Do you actually think that the Cato Institute has any credibility with anybody other than the most braindead of Conservatives?

The Japanese, Germans, French, and even Costa Ricans have a much better average life span than we do here in the US. All have far lower infant mortality. All spend far less on their health care system, and cover all citizens, which we do not.

So we are paying a Cadillac price and getting a Yugo. And you people are perfectly happy with that.

And then there is the matter of hundreds of thousands of American families going bankrupt every year because of medical bills. And none doing so in the rest of the industrial nations. Not in even little Costa Rica, most definately not an industrial nation.

 

[KittenKoder]

Funny thing about stats (thus why I usually don't respond to them ) they can easily be interpreted and altered. Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as "the best health care in the world" ... just the most preferred system, and each person should be allowed to move to the country with their preferred health care system instead of trying to force what they think is best on an entire country.

 

[KittenKoder]

Lordy, lordy, what fools you people are! Do you actually think that the Cato Institute has any credibility with anybody other than the most braindead of Conservatives?

The Japanese, Germans, French, and even Costa Ricans have a much better average life span than we do here in the US. All have far lower infant mortality. All spend far less on their health care system, and cover all citizens, which we do not.

So we are paying a Cadillac price and getting a Yugo. And you people are perfectly happy with that.

And then there is the matter of hundreds of thousands of American families going bankrupt every year because of medical bills. And none doing so in the rest of the industrial nations. Not in even little Costa Rica, most definately not an industrial nation.

Cato supports Al Gore ...

 

[Luissa]

So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General

The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.
WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses
theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre
/press_release/en/index.html.


Here are the rating categories:
1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Does that mean that a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US?

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.

How to judge US healthcare?
life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homocides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels."
Dave Petno » Canadian Doctor Describes Canadian Socialized Medicine

this might work if the other countries didn't have deaths by accidents also.
We also of a higher infant death rate than some of those countries.
I say fail on this one PC.

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure, Kitten, sure.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-43.pdf

Congress should
● open up public lands currently off limits to the oil and gas
industry in the outer continental shelf and the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge for exploration and drilling;
● repeal Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards along with
all other energy conservation mandates;
● repeal subsidies for all energy industries, including oil, gas,
coal, nuclear, and renewable energies of all kinds;
● repeal fuel consumption mandates for ethanol and resist prospective
consumption mandates for other renewable energies;
● eliminate all targeted public energy research and development
programs and replace them with a generalized tax credit for
private research and development undertakings;
● transfer the maintenance of the nuclear weapons stockpile from
the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense and
privatize the national laboratories;
● sell the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and terminate
the program;
● eliminate the Department of Energy and all its programs; and
● refuse appeals to impose new taxes and/or regulations on
energy producers and manufacturers.

 

[Care4all]

the post has a lot of pitting the rich against the poor in it too PC....I thought you on the right say it is the liberals who always bring up the ''classes'' of people, yet it seems to be the opposite, you all bring it up all the time???

so, is health care in the usa separated by the haves and have nots as you say? one gets it and the other has to beg, borrow, and plead....as you stated?

 

[Old Rocks]

If you are lucky, as I have been, the company you work for supplies you with one of the Cadilac plans at little or no cost. However, that ends the day that you are laid off. And the Cobra package is really only available if you have no mortgage and a very low rent. And if you really get hurt or sick while you are laid off, without any coverage, you are bankrupt.

You lose your home, you now have a pre-existing condition, and life gets real tough. In the other industrial nations, this is not the case. So PC is really making a very good case for the "Socialism" she so despises.

 

[Oddball]

Sure, Kitten, sure.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb111/hb111-43.pdf

Congress should
● open up public lands currently off limits to the oil and gas
industry in the outer continental shelf and the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge for exploration and drilling;
● repeal Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards along with
all other energy conservation mandates;
● repeal subsidies for all energy industries, including oil, gas,
coal, nuclear, and renewable energies of all kinds;
● repeal fuel consumption mandates for ethanol and resist prospective
consumption mandates for other renewable energies;
● eliminate all targeted public energy research and development
programs and replace them with a generalized tax credit for
private research and development undertakings;
● transfer the maintenance of the nuclear weapons stockpile from
the Department of Energy to the Department of Defense and
privatize the national laboratories;
● sell the oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and terminate
the program;
● eliminate the Department of Energy and all its programs; and
● refuse appeals to impose new taxes and/or regulations on
energy producers and manufacturers.

Where do I sign?

 

[American Horse]

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.

SO what happened? what went WRONG? Why didn't this happen here PC, as you say it should have....?

Care, when you say 'here' I have to presume you refer to your own state of residence. You should get out of Maine and look around at what is available elsewhere and at what cost. Thank God most of us don't have to put up with what's available in your otherwise great state. And as long as we don't have the system proposed in the current bills we can avoid your fate and will have real choices, and actually have somewhere else to go.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Lordy, lordy, what fools you people are! Do you actually think that the Cato Institute has any credibility with anybody other than the most braindead of Conservatives?

The Japanese, Germans, French, and even Costa Ricans have a much better average life span than we do here in the US. All have far lower infant mortality. All spend far less on their health care system, and cover all citizens, which we do not.

So we are paying a Cadillac price and getting a Yugo. And you people are perfectly happy with that.

And then there is the matter of hundreds of thousands of American families going bankrupt every year because of medical bills. And none doing so in the rest of the industrial nations. Not in even little Costa Rica, most definately not an industrial nation.

Silly stuff. First, no one doubts the quality of health care delivered in the US is as good or better than that available anywhere else in the world. Second, there are no studies that link the kind of health insurance system a country has to its mortality statistics - you may want to believe there is but you have no reason to think so - but there is abundant research that links other factors, such as mortality and smoking, to mortality. As it happens, we in the US are the most obese among the wealthy nations and until a few years ago, we were the heaviest smokers, so naturally we would suspect our average life span might be lower than that of other wealthy nations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22tier.html

Furthermore, studies here in the US have had mixed results, some showing little connection between life expectancy and insurance status and others showing no connection.

No evidence of a direct effect of being uninsured on subsequent mortality, controlling for baseline socio-economic, health behavior, and health status characteristics

The Effects of Lack of Being Uninsured on Mortality and Morbidity

Other studies have shown other interesting results. For example,

When it comes to cancer screening, 80 percent of insured
women ages 40–64 had a mammogram within two years of
the interview; and 87 percent when the period of receipt is
extended to 5 years. That compares to 49 percent of uninsured
women who had a mammogram within two years and 65 percent when the period is within 5 years. However, those
screening rates are relatively high even for uninsured women
when compared with screening rates in Canada, a country
with universal health coverage. The Canadian health survey
reports that 65 percent of Canadian women ages 40–69 had
a mammogram within the past 5 years, the same percentage
as uninsured women in the U.S.

Suggesting that in at least some areas they US health care system is superior to the Canadian system if you have insurance and at least as good as the Canadian system if you are uninsured.

John Ayanian, et al. find that uninsured women as well as women with Medicaid had more advanced breast cancer than women with private
insurance when the condition was initially diagnosed. They also find that the survival outcomes of both the Medicaid and uninsured
women were worse than those of privately insured women. The authors note that higher socioeconomic status is a possible explanation for
the better survival of privately insured women.

In fact, educational levels and socioeconomic class are more closely associated with mortality rates in the US than insurance status. For example, in a group followed from 1992 through 2006, those who were involuntarily uninsured, presumably low income but not poor enough for Medicaid, had better survival rates than those on Medicaid when surveyed every two years from 1998 to 2006; those who were voluntarily uninsured, presumably with higher incomes that the involuntarily uninsured and those on Medicaid, had much better survival rates than either of these groups and only slightly worse than those with private insurance. (From table 11 from the link below)

http://www.epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf

When you put the facts from these studies together, a few things become clear that might not otherwise have been apparent. First, affordable health care is available to the vast majority of the uninsured. Second, educational levels, socioeconomic class and lifestyle factors such as obesity and smoking are strong determinants of mortality and insurance status has little on no effect on mortality.

 

[germanguy]

Hi there,

IMHO all this statistics and debate about it will not lead to any result.
This because a statistical value does not stand for itself, but must be seen in relation to the question for which the data is collected.

The question "Who has the best healthcare - system in the world" may not be answered, as a lot of people will prefer things about their system, which are based on personal preference.

You compare, as we germans say, apples with peas.
I.E. the germans do get a much higher number of angle endoscopies than the British.
Does that mean german angles are weaker than the british ?
Also, we have a much higher number of hip joint endroprosthesis than the brits.
Does our healthcare system pays for more of these or are our hips softer ? Are the Brits tougher and use crutches ? How to interprete this number.

A glimpse you might get if you compare the amount spend per capita for healthcare.

This is higher in the US than in Germany ( I do not know the numbers, but read about 2,5times more). But who gets what for this amount ? And can what you get be compared ?

I can only say, that in Germany for about 9 % of my wage I get full coverage for me and my familiy. Also every german is covered by the healthcare system.
This only works, as there is a law, that forces every german into one of the medical insurances. You can opt-out totally, but this is neither welcomed and also quite difficult.

What do I get ?

Every necessary medical treatment for me and my familiy.
Pharmaceutics are limited in a way, but not that I do not get what I need. For prescripted medication I have to pay an additional fee of some Euros, but if I need very ecxpensive medication, I do only pay a maximum fee, which is far lower than the price of the medication.

The underlying idea of this system is solidarity.
The richer ones can opt out and get private insurances, but in general the healthy ones pay for the ill ones.
The system has a lot of flaws and problems, but it is in general widely accepted.
To leave, as in the US, a large number of citizens without any medical insurance would cost any MP the seat in parliament. No german government would survive that.

Is it now better than the US healthcare ?
Well, depends on what you want and how you define "better".

Doctors here earn much less than elsewhere in the world or in the US. That´s a big minus.
If you have work, you also pay for the unemployed, the poor, the ones who exploit the welfare state and so on. Also a minus.
In some regions I have to wait to see a doctor (even though we have more doctors per capita than the US) and the will to pay cash does not get me necessarily better treatment or even quicker one. Also a minus.

There are clinics in the US which are definitely better equipped, have better staff or offer a much better treatment than here. Big minus.

But how do you get a treatment there ?
Does your insurance cover every treatment they offer ? Can everybody go there ?
Here the basement is much broader and therefore we are still able to finance reaearch and first class clinics.
It runs down to the simple question:
Is the majority of the voters in favour of a system, which gives everybody access to medical treatment or does the majority accepts, that a certain percentage of the citizens has to live without it.
After you have decided this question, you can start to debate about the system you want. Look around in the world.
There are countries which have a different system and neither are they communist countries.

And yes: We germans pay a lot of taxes, but only if you include the amount we spend for social insurances (against unemployment (= 60 % of my last wage for 12 months), for healthcare, our pension and care for the elderly and disabled). +

Calculate by yourself what you would have to pay in addition, if you pay for the above insurances all by yourself.

Also, in Germany states and the Federal Govt. do not tax seperately.
The vast majority of the taxes are split according to a complicated key between the Federal Govt. and the States
.
Therefore it may sometimes difficult to properly compare between what you pay in the US and we pay here.
To give you an idea, just add every amount you pay as tax up and then compare with our numbers (and then include your expenses for your medical insurance).


Regards

the germanguy
_______________________
Es wird niemals so viel gelogen wie vor der Wahl, während des Krieges und nach der Jagd.
(= There are never so much lies as before elections, in wartime or after hunting)
Otto von Bismarck

 

[DiamondDave]

Lordy, lordy, what fools you people are! Do you actually think that the Cato Institute has any credibility with anybody other than the most braindead of Conservatives?

The Japanese, Germans, French, and even Costa Ricans have a much better average life span than we do here in the US. All have far lower infant mortality. All spend far less on their health care system, and cover all citizens, which we do not.

So we are paying a Cadillac price and getting a Yugo. And you people are perfectly happy with that.

And then there is the matter of hundreds of thousands of American families going bankrupt every year because of medical bills. And none doing so in the rest of the industrial nations. Not in even little Costa Rica, most definately not an industrial nation.

And the validity of their 'gathered' statistics and what is counted is also into legit question

But thank you for playing... see Don Pardo for some nice parting gifts

Oh... and BTW.. personal bankruptcy has no bearing on the quality involved in our medical capabilities... for we (no matter how much you and your ilk wish it to be) not a nation of government mandated wealth redistribution and entitlements owed just because you fucking exist

 

[Care4all]

Lordy, lordy, what fools you people are! Do you actually think that the Cato Institute has any credibility with anybody other than the most braindead of Conservatives?

The Japanese, Germans, French, and even Costa Ricans have a much better average life span than we do here in the US. All have far lower infant mortality. All spend far less on their health care system, and cover all citizens, which we do not.

So we are paying a Cadillac price and getting a Yugo. And you people are perfectly happy with that.

And then there is the matter of hundreds of thousands of American families going bankrupt every year because of medical bills. And none doing so in the rest of the industrial nations. Not in even little Costa Rica, most definately not an industrial nation.

Silly stuff. First, no one doubts the quality of health care delivered in the US is as good or better than that available anywhere else in the world. Second, there are no studies that link the kind of health insurance system a country has to its mortality statistics - you may want to believe there is but you have no reason to think so - but there is abundant research that links other factors, such as mortality and smoking, to mortality. As it happens, we in the US are the most obese among the wealthy nations and until a few years ago, we were the heaviest smokers, so naturally we would suspect our average life span might be lower than that of other wealthy nations.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/science/22tier.html

Furthermore, studies here in the US have had mixed results, some showing little connection between life expectancy and insurance status and others showing no connection.

No evidence of a direct effect of being uninsured on subsequent mortality, controlling for baseline socio-economic, health behavior, and health status characteristics

The Effects of Lack of Being Uninsured on Mortality and Morbidity

Other studies have shown other interesting results. For example,

When it comes to cancer screening, 80 percent of insured
women ages 40–64 had a mammogram within two years of
the interview; and 87 percent when the period of receipt is
extended to 5 years. That compares to 49 percent of uninsured
women who had a mammogram within two years and 65 percent when the period is within 5 years. However, those
screening rates are relatively high even for uninsured women
when compared with screening rates in Canada, a country
with universal health coverage. The Canadian health survey
reports that 65 percent of Canadian women ages 40–69 had
a mammogram within the past 5 years, the same percentage
as uninsured women in the U.S.

Suggesting that in at least some areas they US health care system is superior to the Canadian system if you have insurance and at least as good as the Canadian system if you are uninsured.

John Ayanian, et al. find that uninsured women as well as women with Medicaid had more advanced breast cancer than women with private
insurance when the condition was initially diagnosed. They also find that the survival outcomes of both the Medicaid and uninsured
women were worse than those of privately insured women. The authors note that higher socioeconomic status is a possible explanation for
the better survival of privately insured women.

In fact, educational levels and socioeconomic class are more closely associated with mortality rates in the US than insurance status. For example, in a group followed from 1992 through 2006, those who were involuntarily uninsured, presumably low income but not poor enough for Medicaid, had better survival rates than those on Medicaid when surveyed every two years from 1998 to 2006; those who were voluntarily uninsured, presumably with higher incomes that the involuntarily uninsured and those on Medicaid, had much better survival rates than either of these groups and only slightly worse than those with private insurance. (From table 11 from the link below)

http://www.epionline.org/studies/oneill_06-2009.pdf

When you put the facts from these studies together, a few things become clear that might not otherwise have been apparent. First, affordable health care is available to the vast majority of the uninsured. Second, educational levels, socioeconomic class and lifestyle factors such as obesity and smoking are strong determinants of mortality and insurance status has little on no effect on mortality.

If affordable health care is available for the vast majority of the uninsured, then who are the millions of people that have had to file for bankruptcy due to medical costs?

And why do those without insurance have a higher death rate than those with it?

Are only the people without insurance the obese and smokers?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Lordy, lordy, what fools you people are! Do you actually think that the Cato Institute has any credibility with anybody other than the most braindead of Conservatives?

The Japanese, Germans, French, and even Costa Ricans have a much better average life span than we do here in the US. All have far lower infant mortality. All spend far less on their health care system, and cover all citizens, which we do not.

So we are paying a Cadillac price and getting a Yugo. And you people are perfectly happy with that.

And then there is the matter of hundreds of thousands of American families going bankrupt every year because of medical bills. And none doing so in the rest of the industrial nations. Not in even little Costa Rica, most definately not an industrial nation.

Alexander Pope:
A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

And, we have the winner in the category of 'little learning'...and I do mean little.


Allow me to demonstrate how you have been hoodwinked and led by that ring in your nose: again- America has the best healthcare in the world, and the longest lifespan.

1. Again: "In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels.
Dave Petno » Canadian Doctor Describes Canadian Socialized Medicine

2. How about the result of having food? With so much food, so many choices (tell me about it), we Americans are eating ourselves to death: obesity. Is this the fault of poor healthcare?
From a NYTimes article about ‘Sicko,’ and Cuba:
“Because they don’t have up-to-date cars, they tend to have to exercise more by walking,” he said. “And they may not have a surfeit of food, which keeps them from problems like obesity, but they’re not starving, either.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/weekinreview/27depalma.html
So, is obesity a problem of US healthcare?

3. Infant mortality is a major component in the calculation of life expectancy in a nation.
a) Cuba makes up figures, and uses induced abortions to eliminate problem fetuses.
Wiley InterScience :: Session Cookies

b) . While 40% of America’s infant mortality rate is due to reporting of infants who die on the day of their birth, many countries don’t register such deaths at all. Other countries require specific size (Switzerland, 30 cm) and weights (Austria and Germany, 500 gms) to be listed as having been born.
Bernadine Healy, M.D.: Behind the baby count - US News and World Report

c) NYTimes report of 11/4/09:
“If the United States could match Sweden’s prematurity rate, the new report said, “nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year, and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower.”

We find the usual anti-US slant of the Times, in not mentioning that race is the reason:

“The use of this example highlights to disingenuousness of the authors. In their supposedly “detailed” report on infant mortality, they fail to analyze the most important detail: race. Unfortunately, African descent is a major risk factor for prematurity, and prematurity is a major cause of infant mortality. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the US has a higher infant mortality rate than Sweden. The US has the highest proportion of women of African descent of any first world country. Sweden, of course, has virtually none. So our higher rate of infant mortality does not reflect poor medical care. It reflects factors beyond the control of doctors. Race is an uncontrollable factor; obstetricians and pediatricians have no control over assisted reproductive techniques. In fact, the data actually show obstetricians and pediatricians do a remarkable job of ensuring infant health.”

Infant mortality report neglects the most important detail - AmyTuteurMD - Open Salon

d) The wealthy USA has availability of fertility drugs that result in far more multiple births, a factor that increases infant mortality.


Review: Homicides, auto accidents, obesity, preemy births, fertility drugs...which are factors which show a poor healthcare system?

Now all that remains is for the a) anti-America crowd, and the b) mathematically challenged bunch to claim, again, that the US does not have the greatest longevity in the world and a healthcare system responsibe for same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.

SO what happened? what went WRONG? Why didn't this happen here PC, as you say it should have....?

What is WRONG is that you drank the Kool-Aid.

Downgrading Health Care
The administration has warned that soaring health spending threatens the stability of American families and the economy. These doomsday scenarios are untrue. Health care spending is increasing at more moderate rates than in previous decades. Spending increased 10.5 percent in 1970, 13 percent in 1980, and consistently less than 7 percent in each of the last five years, reaching a low of 6.1 percent a year ago. Each year since 1960, food and energy together have taken up a declining share of Americans' expenditures, while housing has taken up a steady share. This has enabled Americans to spend an increasing share of their budgets on another necessity, healthcare. These four necessities together consume the same share of American spending now (55%) as they did in 1960 (53%). As further evidence, Americans are increasing the share of their spending that goes to recreation. Moderate income families can be helped to buy health coverage with vouchers, refundable tax credits, or debit cards. That's a low risk, "fix what's broken" approach.
Increases in healthcare expenditures:
2003 8.6%
2004 6.9%
2005 6.5%
2006 6.7%
2007 6.1%
Compare to 10.5% in 1970 and 13% in 1980

For purposes of comparison, education:
Tuition at private colleges and universities has increased anywhere from 5% to 13% every year since 1980. "
The Cost of a College Education

And for primary and secondary school:
"Based on statistics from the US Department of Education, the average cost of educating a student in elementary and secondary schools has risen from $6,200 in 1991 to $11,000 in 2005 an increase of 85%. "
US Education Market | Entourage Systems Inc.


. If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it’s free:
The following ‘Universal Healthcare’ countries have higher out-of-pocket costs than the United States:
Out-of-pocket spending as a share of total expenditure on health, 1980-2000 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5/53/22364122.pdf (table 4)
Canada, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Spain, Switzerland.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So we have been told that the United States is listed at number 37 in world ranking for health care. Here is why only fools and America-bashers attribute any significance to this rating: WHO/UN states that their data “is hampered by the weakness of routine information systems and insufficient attention to research” and when they couldn’t find data, they “developed [data] through a variety of techniques.” WHO accepts whatever governments tell them, including reputable regimes such as Castro’s Cuba.
WHO | Message from the Director-General

The oh-so-political WHO/UN is not thrilled with governments like the US, as they have determined that we do not have a progressive-enough tax system. This is one of the criteria for judging our healthcare.
WHO, “World Health Organization Assesses
theWorld’sHealth Systems,” press release, undated,
http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre
/press_release/en/index.html.


Here are the rating categories:
1. Health Level: 25 percent
2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp101.pdf

After an intensive survey of over 1000 respondents, half of whom were members of UN staff, they designed a measurement of healthcare in which 62.5% of the criteria of their healthcare study on some type of “equality!”
WHO | The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance

Note that the United States suffers in the WHO/UN healthcare ratings due to a definition of fairness which reads: “the smallest feasible differences between individuals and groups.” Does that mean that a poor nation that does not have our level of expensive or experimental treatment, and therefore lets all suffers die, would have a higher rating than the US?

This is not to imply that only the rich in America can get the ‘expensive’ treatment, since there are many options such as a)getting a loan, b) asking a family member or a charity for help, c) find a doctor, hospital, or drug company willing to work at a reduced rate. All are common.

And because we have rich people who pay a great deal for the best healthcare, enabling research and development, the end result is that this brings costs down and makes treatment affordable for everyone, even in socialist countries.

How to judge US healthcare?
life expectancy: many people die for reasons that can’t be controlled the medical profession, such as auto accidents, murder, etc., and once you factor out care crashes and homocides, the US ranks number one in worldwide life expectancy!

“One often-heard argument, voiced by the New York Times' Paul Krugman and others, is that America lags behind other countries in crude health outcomes. But such outcomes reflect a mosaic of factors, such as diet, lifestyle, drug use and cultural values. It pains me as a doctor to say this, but health care is just one factor in health.

In The Business of Health, Robert Ohsfeldt and John Schneider factor out intentional and unintentional injuries from life-expectancy statistics and find that Americans who don't die in car crashes or homicides outlive people in any other Western country.
And if we measure a health care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels."
Dave Petno » Canadian Doctor Describes Canadian Socialized Medicine

this might work if the other countries didn't have deaths by accidents also.
We also of a higher infant death rate than some of those countries.
I say fail on this one PC.

Better reverse that to 'pass'- with honors.

Check out post #17

 

[PoliticalChic]

the post has a lot of pitting the rich against the poor in it too PC....I thought you on the right say it is the liberals who always bring up the ''classes'' of people, yet it seems to be the opposite, you all bring it up all the time???

so, is health care in the usa separated by the haves and have nots as you say? one gets it and the other has to beg, borrow, and plead....as you stated?

Please specify with quotes, so I can destroy your argument.