We're number 37 !!!!!!!!!!!

[Old Rocks]

You must read more carefully.

The point is that the criteria used by WHO hardly rate healthcare, and, thus are more along the lines of a polemic, than a conclusion.

A polemic?

Toward what end?

Are you suggesting the WHO set out to destroy the world's respect for American health care?

Unless you are still in grade school, you must be eternally obtuse to miss the overarching leftward tilt of the UN, of which the WHO is a part, the Nobel Committee, and most Social-Democrat governments of the EU.

Either that, or you have imbibed, and accepted, the public school indocrination that denies American exceptionalism, and does all it can to find fault with the finest country in the world.

Did you know that Stalin means 'steel one,' or did you choose it for that reason?

LOL. So what you are saying is that our own CIA is aiding and abetting these "Socialistic!!!!!!'nations.

Nobody to trust but me and thee, and we are not so sure of thee

 

[elvis]

How many times has this canard been debunked, just on this message board? I've lost count.

Old Rocks? He's been debunked many, many times.

 

[Old Rocks]

Produce it.

Easy enough for someone with the average Liberal intellect. Pretty difficult for a Conservative, however.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Infant mortality rate:
total: 6.26 deaths/1,000 live births
country comparison to the world: 180
male: 6.94 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.55 deaths/1,000 live births (2009 est.)

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 78.11 years
country comparison to the world: 50
male: 75.65 years
female: 80.69 years (2009 est.)

The lower life expectancy in the US is not caused by our health care system. Look at this study: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

There are many other factors as well that affect a certain population's overall health that health care systems have little control of. Which is why we should not put so much weight on the WHO ranking as a reason for more health care reform.

OK. So let's check that out. 30 years ago the life expectancy in Canada was almost exactly the same as ours. And their infant mortality rate was about the same. Then they instituted National Health Care. Now they live on the average 3 years longer than we do, and their infant mortality and early childhood mortality is far lower than ours.

Hmm...........

 

[SFC Ollie]

Even setting those concerns aside, the rankings are still highly sensitive to both measurement error and assumptions about the relative importance of the components.

As does every attempt to dismiss them. The difference is the standards for the assumptions. The WHO ranking reflects standards observed by most of the industrialized world. The CATO attempt to dismiss the WHO ranking represent those of special interests. Given a choice between the reasonable standards of the WHO and CATO's spin, the WHO ranking is better.

Would that be the OA or the OP?

 

[Dr Grump]

[

I'm curious. Do you actually imagine that choosing one sentence out of a rather long post to respond to impresses anyone or makes us think you're anything but a partisan hack?

When you grow a pair and can answer the entire post honestly and thoughtfully, come back and see me. Until then, don't even bother, because you're just a cowardly waste of pixels.

In that case, pot meet kettle..

maybe the rest of your post was just a partisan rant. He made a good point, yet you ignore it. Go figure....

 

[elvis]

[

I'm curious. Do you actually imagine that choosing one sentence out of a rather long post to respond to impresses anyone or makes us think you're anything but a partisan hack?

When you grow a pair and can answer the entire post honestly and thoughtfully, come back and see me. Until then, don't even bother, because you're just a cowardly waste of pixels.

In that case, pot meet kettle..

maybe the rest of your post was just a partisan rant. He made a good point, yet you ignore it. Go figure....

Your system is probably better than Canada's. Canada's is terrible. People wait for months for things they should be able to get the same day.

 

[Dr Grump]

Your system is probably better than Canada's. Canada's is terrible. People wait for months for things they should be able to get the same day.

We have both private and public. Public offers waiting lists, but private you get seen more or less straight away.

however, if EVERYBODY had private, there are not enough doctors and facilities to cater for everybody's needs. I'm betting it's the same in the US. If every single person in the US had private, would they ALL get seen to when they are needed to?

 

[elvis]

Your system is probably better than Canada's. Canada's is terrible. People wait for months for things they should be able to get the same day.

We have both private and public. Public offers waiting lists, but private you get seen more or less straight away.

however, if EVERYBODY had private, there are not enough doctors and facilities to cater for everybody's needs. I'm betting it's the same in the US. If every single person in the US had private, would they ALL get seen to when they are needed to?

the US ranks first in response time. Implement canada's system, and that ranking will plummet.

 

[jillian]

the US ranks first in response time. Implement canada's system, and that ranking will plummet.

if that were the case, why would Canadians have picked the man who developed their health care system as the most respected Canadian?

if someone has no health insurance and can't afford doctors, do you really think their world ends if they have to wait a little?

for people who CAN afford to pay, they'll still get the most immediate care.

 

[elvis]

the US ranks first in response time. Implement canada's system, and that ranking will plummet.

if that were the case, why would Canadians have picked the man who developed their health care system as the most respected Canadian?

if someone has no health insurance and can't afford doctors, do you really think their world ends if they have to wait a little?

for people who CAN afford to pay, they'll still get the most immediate care.

you call waiting for months for an X-ray a little? and what was Bush's approval rating? 90 percent?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I love this debate tactic. "<insert Country/Organization/Political Party> hates America"

I have the same question every time:

Why?

Please can someone for the love of...tell me why the WHO would find statistics which dilibratly make the US look bad?

Anyone?

Oh, please. It has to be "dilibratly" trying to make the US look bad, as opposed to just propagandizing for a general worldview? Get over your persecution complex.

You twerps really don't deserve this. I ought to make you take your lazy butts out to go through the umpteen threads that have ALREADY been done on this to find the answers.

Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions—some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares. The analysts behind the WHO rankings express the hope that their framework “will lay the basis for a shift from ideological discourse on health policy to a more empirical one.” Yet the WHO rankings themselves have a strong ideological component. They include factors that are arguably unrelated to actual health performance, some of which could even improve in response to worse health performance. Even setting those concerns aside, the rankings are still highly sensitive to both measurement error and assumptions about the relative importance of the components. And finally, the WHO rankings reflect implicit value judgments and lifestyle preferences that differ among individuals and across countries. - The Cato Institute (They said it better than I could, and it was faster.)

Standards which are applied to all countries in the study. Thats sort of the point. If you are allowed to cut out the bits you don't like then every country shares the #1 position.

Way to totally miss the fucking point, Brain Trust.

 

[jillian]

the US ranks first in response time. Implement canada's system, and that ranking will plummet.

if that were the case, why would Canadians have picked the man who developed their health care system as the most respected Canadian?

if someone has no health insurance and can't afford doctors, do you really think their world ends if they have to wait a little?

for people who CAN afford to pay, they'll still get the most immediate care.

you call waiting for months for an X-ray a little? and what was Bush's approval rating? 90 percent?

i have never heard of anyone waiting months for x-rays. but do you think even if that were the case, that someone who couldn't have had the x-ray at all would care?

it was 90% after 9.11. why?

reagan's was the same as obama's at this point.

what was bush's approval rating when he left office? 28%?

 

[SFC Ollie]

if that were the case, why would Canadians have picked the man who developed their health care system as the most respected Canadian?

if someone has no health insurance and can't afford doctors, do you really think their world ends if they have to wait a little?

for people who CAN afford to pay, they'll still get the most immediate care.

you call waiting for months for an X-ray a little? and what was Bush's approval rating? 90 percent?

i have never heard of anyone waiting months for x-rays. but do you think even if that were the case, that someone who couldn't have had the x-ray at all would care?

If they live long enough.........

 

[elvis]

if that were the case, why would Canadians have picked the man who developed their health care system as the most respected Canadian?

if someone has no health insurance and can't afford doctors, do you really think their world ends if they have to wait a little?

for people who CAN afford to pay, they'll still get the most immediate care.

you call waiting for months for an X-ray a little? and what was Bush's approval rating? 90 percent?

i have never heard of anyone waiting months for x-rays. but do you think even if that were the case, that someone who couldn't have had the x-ray at all would care?

there is no "I can't afford it" in Canada. because it's socialized. If socialism works so well in medicine, why don't they implement it in other sectors? Doesn't Medicaid cover X-rays? I'll be back in a while.

 

[Christopher]

Easy enough for someone with the average Liberal intellect. Pretty difficult for a Conservative, however.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Infant mortality rate:
total: 6.26 deaths/1,000 live births
country comparison to the world: 180
male: 6.94 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.55 deaths/1,000 live births (2009 est.)

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 78.11 years
country comparison to the world: 50
male: 75.65 years
female: 80.69 years (2009 est.)

The lower life expectancy in the US is not caused by our health care system. Look at this study: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

There are many other factors as well that affect a certain population's overall health that health care systems have little control of. Which is why we should not put so much weight on the WHO ranking as a reason for more health care reform.

Those factors effect every country.

You are right, they do. The problem with the US is that we have a higher percentage of people living unhealthy lifestyles. As an example, we have had the highest level of cigarette/tobacco use per capita during a fifty year period up until the 1980’s (according to the study I gave). We are now seeing the effects of that use in our population. This same study found quoted from another study:

One recent study estimated that, if deaths attributable to smoking were eliminated, the ranking of US men in life expectancy at age 50 among 20 OECD countries would improve from 14th to 9th, while US women would move from 18th to 7th (Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth 2009).

That is a big jump just because of how many more smokers we have had over the years. Here is another item they mentioned in the study, which shows that the US also has higher obesity rates:

Recent trends in obesity are also more adverse in the United States
than in other developed countries (OECD 2008; Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003).

And another fact from the study:

The United States has a higher prevalence than
Europe of the major adult diseases, including cancer, heart disease, and diabetes (Thorpe et al. 2007a; Avendano et al. 2009).

We have actually made great strides in educating people about the effects of tobacco, and will likely see the results of this in the next few decades as fewer people die of lung cancer. All of these facts need to considered and taken into context with the WHO ranking if we are to really understand why we are ranked 37th. The fact remains that from this study there is not much we can do to reform our health care system that will affect our ranking. How about we start caring about the root causes of the problem and work through ways of educating and providing incentives to live healthier? Lets just stop pretending that being ranked 37th by the World Health Organization means we need to drastically reform our health care system, when all we really need to do is change our lifestyles.

 

[Christopher]

A healthcare system is supposed to provide care to the population. Public/Private/both doesn't matter.You do not get to carve out whole swathes of it because the results do not fit your mould.
If you have a problem with fat people, then how your system handles that is what is marked. If black people are having babies and those babies are not making it, then how your healthcare system handles that particular issue is marked. If there are more road traffic accidents resulting in fatalities in the ER, then you are marked on that.

Surprise surprise, there are Africans in Europe, there are fat people here too. And amazingly there are quite a few automobiles. We have multi-ethnic societies, migrant populations too.
We deal with it fine.

A government should not force its people eat healthy, go on diets, quit smoking, exercise, etc. It is our own responsibility to take care of our health.

 

[Christopher]

Easy enough for someone with the average Liberal intellect. Pretty difficult for a Conservative, however.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Infant mortality rate:
total: 6.26 deaths/1,000 live births
country comparison to the world: 180
male: 6.94 deaths/1,000 live births
female: 5.55 deaths/1,000 live births (2009 est.)

Life expectancy at birth:
total population: 78.11 years
country comparison to the world: 50
male: 75.65 years
female: 80.69 years (2009 est.)

The lower life expectancy in the US is not caused by our health care system. Look at this study: http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=psc_working_papers

There are many other factors as well that affect a certain population's overall health that health care systems have little control of. Which is why we should not put so much weight on the WHO ranking as a reason for more health care reform.

OK. So let's check that out. 30 years ago the life expectancy in Canada was almost exactly the same as ours. And their infant mortality rate was about the same. Then they instituted National Health Care. Now they live on the average 3 years longer than we do, and their infant mortality and early childhood mortality is far lower than ours.

Hmm...........

So, your attempt at tying mortality statistics together with Canada’s health care system changes with absolutely no basis for the correlation disproves the study I provided? Try again.

 

[manu1959]

yep...america is awful.....people should move to the other 36 nations which are better.....and california...it is the worst...stay away at all costs.....

 

[Toronado3800]

Don't take it personally when I say "America isn't #1" in something. When all is combined I think we do pretty darn well. Even if we do eat too many cheeseburgers for our already socialized healthcare system to keep us alive lol.

No really. We already have socialized medicine. This is just an attempt to bring it all above the table.

Think about it. Even w/o Medicare or Medicade if I crawl into the hospital with a broken leg they'll fix it even if I'm broke and uninsured. They'll even begin long term care for cancer or HIV for me. Not as good as for Magic Johnson but hey, I'll rack up tens of thousands in bills everyone else pays for.

 

[Munin]

you call waiting for months for an X-ray a little? and what was Bush's approval rating? 90 percent?

i have never heard of anyone waiting months for x-rays. but do you think even if that were the case, that someone who couldn't have had the x-ray at all would care?

there is no "I can't afford it" in Canada. because it's socialized. If socialism works so well in medicine, why don't they implement it in other sectors? Doesn't Medicaid cover X-rays? I'll be back in a while.

You re missing the whole point of a healthcare system: it is supposed to take care of all the people that live in a nation. It s like the US army that is supposed to protect all americans, healthcare should be seen in the same category. A government should protect its people from harm and give them the means to protect themselves, a private healthcare industry does not do this: just like a private army wouldn't do it either.

And if you ve noticed: it is implemented in other sectors (the police, the fire department, justice system, the government itself: politicians have healthcare payed for by the taxpayers, ...)