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

[Alvin]

Which of those countries did Ted Kennedy pick for his cancer treatment...just saying.

What country didn't cure him? - Just saying.

Cancer is a terminal illness in most cases...
Everyone will succumb to death

Just sayin'

As I said above

 

[Toronado3800]

Already your argument is proved wrong by the existence of this very thread we are posting in, "we re number 37". All countries that re ranked above the US don't seem to have had a problem with making less costs (in general) than what the private healthcare system of the US has been doing for decades. What the US government has been doing for the last decades by "interfering" was subsidizing the private healthcare industry, as such they have never really interfered with the private healthcare system (until now). And no this has nothing to do with a magician show, unless you are in a constant state of illusion and denial to accept reality.

Are you saying the government hasn't been involved in medical care since now and healthcare in other countries is more cost effective?

I contend we already have a form of universal healthcare. In general: If you get shot and show up at a hospital they give you a level of life saving treatment. Maybe a 1990's level of tech gets used on ya, you won't get the best rehab, and VIP 70 year old Presidents are more likely to live through a few bullets to the chest, but you still get treated even if you're broke or not a citizen.

In specific I know a broke person with this rare Alpha1 disease. Thanks to substandard insurance (her "fault" for not holding a decent job) She has to doctor shop a lot. She gets treatments, pays some minimum payments for 6 months, then has to move on to a doctor she doesn't owe $xxxx to. Who flips the bill? We do. Almost directly through higher costs for our treatment just like shoplifters drive up cost at the grocery store. Indirectly because I suspect doctors get big government "welfare" like deductions or tax credits for services not paid for.

 

[Alvin]

I contend we already have a form of universal healthcare. In general: If you get shot and show up at a hospital they give you a level of life saving treatment. Maybe a 1990's level of tech gets used on ya, you won't get the best rehab, and VIP 70 year old Presidents are more likely to live through a few bullets to the chest, but you still get treated even if you're broke or not a citizen..

Just a point, - You do get the same level of trauma care as everyone else in that instance. Trauma care is pretty much standard. It's what happens after that makes the difference AFIK.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Mark B. Constantian: Where U.S. Health Care Ranks Number One - WSJ.com

Last August the cover of Time pictured President Obama in white coat and stethoscope. The story opened: "The U.S. spends more to get less [health care] than just about every other industrialized country." This trope has dominated media coverage of health-care reform. Yet a majority of Americans opposes Congress's health-care bills. Why?

The comparative ranking system that most critics cite comes from the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO). The ranking most often quoted is Overall Performance, where the U.S. is rated No. 37. The Overall Performance Index, however, is adjusted to reflect how well WHO officials believe that a country could have done in relation to its resources.

The scale is heavily subjective: The WHO believes that we could have done better because we do not have universal coverage. What apparently does not matter is that our population has universal access because most physicians treat indigent patients without charge and accept Medicare and Medicaid payments, which do not even cover overhead expenses. The WHO does rank the U.S. No. 1 of 191 countries for "responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient." Isn't responsiveness what health care is all about?

Data assembled by Dr. Ronald Wenger and published recently in the Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons indicates that cardiac deaths in the U.S. have fallen by two-thirds over the past 50 years. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Childhood leukemia has a high cure rate. Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S.

The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies. The U.S. has some of the highest breast, colon and prostate cancer survival rates in the world. And our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

We have the shortest waiting time for nonemergency surgery in the world; England has one of the longest. In Canada, a country of 35 million citizens, 1 million patients now wait for surgery and another million wait to see specialists.

When my friend, cardiac surgeon Peter Alivizatos, returned to Greece after 10 years heading the heart transplantation program at Baylor University in Dallas, the one-year heart transplant survival rate there was 50%—five-year survival was only 35%. He soon increased those numbers to 94% one-year and 90% five-year survival, which is what we achieve in the U.S. So the next time you hear that the U.S. is No. 37, remember that Greece is No. 14. Cuba, by the way, is No. 39.

But the issue is only partly about quality. As we have all heard, the U.S. spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product for health care than any other country.

Actually, health-care spending now increases more moderately than it has in previous decades. Food, energy, housing and health care consume the same share of American spending today (55%) that they did in 1960 (53%).

So what does this money buy? Certainly some goes to inefficiencies, corporate profits, and costs that should be lowered by professional liability reform and national, free-market insurance access by allowing for competition across state lines. But the majority goes to a long list of advantages that American citizens now expect: the easiest access, the shortest waiting times the widest choice of physicians and hospitals, and constant availability of health care to elderly Americans. What we need now is insurance and liability reform—not health-care reform.

Who determines how much a nation should pay for its health? Is 17% too much, or too little? What better way could there be to dedicate our national resources than toward the health and productivity of our citizens?

Perhaps it's not that America spends too much on health care, but that other nations don't spend enough.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Mark B. Constantian: Where U.S. Health Care Ranks Number One - WSJ.com

Last August the cover of Time pictured President Obama in white coat and stethoscope. The story opened: "The U.S. spends more to get less [health care] than just about every other industrialized country." This trope has dominated media coverage of health-care reform. Yet a majority of Americans opposes Congress's health-care bills. Why?

The comparative ranking system that most critics cite comes from the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO). The ranking most often quoted is Overall Performance, where the U.S. is rated No. 37. The Overall Performance Index, however, is adjusted to reflect how well WHO officials believe that a country could have done in relation to its resources.

The scale is heavily subjective: The WHO believes that we could have done better because we do not have universal coverage. What apparently does not matter is that our population has universal access because most physicians treat indigent patients without charge and accept Medicare and Medicaid payments, which do not even cover overhead expenses. The WHO does rank the U.S. No. 1 of 191 countries for "responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient." Isn't responsiveness what health care is all about?

Data assembled by Dr. Ronald Wenger and published recently in the Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons indicates that cardiac deaths in the U.S. have fallen by two-thirds over the past 50 years. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Childhood leukemia has a high cure rate. Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S.

The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies. The U.S. has some of the highest breast, colon and prostate cancer survival rates in the world. And our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

We have the shortest waiting time for nonemergency surgery in the world; England has one of the longest. In Canada, a country of 35 million citizens, 1 million patients now wait for surgery and another million wait to see specialists.

When my friend, cardiac surgeon Peter Alivizatos, returned to Greece after 10 years heading the heart transplantation program at Baylor University in Dallas, the one-year heart transplant survival rate there was 50%—five-year survival was only 35%. He soon increased those numbers to 94% one-year and 90% five-year survival, which is what we achieve in the U.S. So the next time you hear that the U.S. is No. 37, remember that Greece is No. 14. Cuba, by the way, is No. 39.

But the issue is only partly about quality. As we have all heard, the U.S. spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product for health care than any other country.

Actually, health-care spending now increases more moderately than it has in previous decades. Food, energy, housing and health care consume the same share of American spending today (55%) that they did in 1960 (53%).

So what does this money buy? Certainly some goes to inefficiencies, corporate profits, and costs that should be lowered by professional liability reform and national, free-market insurance access by allowing for competition across state lines. But the majority goes to a long list of advantages that American citizens now expect: the easiest access, the shortest waiting times the widest choice of physicians and hospitals, and constant availability of health care to elderly Americans. What we need now is insurance and liability reform—not health-care reform.

Who determines how much a nation should pay for its health? Is 17% too much, or too little? What better way could there be to dedicate our national resources than toward the health and productivity of our citizens?

Perhaps it's not that America spends too much on health care, but that other nations don't spend enough.

cool the nosejob-expert does the typical cherry-picking. let's see where is the USA #1? ah responsiveness! ergo, isn't health care essentially responsiveness: #1,#1,#1.
the second trick is even better, hahahah. US is #1 in spending, because the others fail to spend more. haha. nice.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Mark B. Constantian: Where U.S. Health Care Ranks Number One - WSJ.com

Last August the cover of Time pictured President Obama in white coat and stethoscope. The story opened: "The U.S. spends more to get less [health care] than just about every other industrialized country." This trope has dominated media coverage of health-care reform. Yet a majority of Americans opposes Congress's health-care bills. Why?

The comparative ranking system that most critics cite comes from the U.N.'s World Health Organization (WHO). The ranking most often quoted is Overall Performance, where the U.S. is rated No. 37. The Overall Performance Index, however, is adjusted to reflect how well WHO officials believe that a country could have done in relation to its resources.

The scale is heavily subjective: The WHO believes that we could have done better because we do not have universal coverage. What apparently does not matter is that our population has universal access because most physicians treat indigent patients without charge and accept Medicare and Medicaid payments, which do not even cover overhead expenses. The WHO does rank the U.S. No. 1 of 191 countries for "responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient." Isn't responsiveness what health care is all about?

Data assembled by Dr. Ronald Wenger and published recently in the Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons indicates that cardiac deaths in the U.S. have fallen by two-thirds over the past 50 years. Polio has been virtually eradicated. Childhood leukemia has a high cure rate. Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S.

The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies. The U.S. has some of the highest breast, colon and prostate cancer survival rates in the world. And our country ranks first or second in the world in kidney transplants, liver transplants, heart transplants, total knee replacements, coronary artery bypass, and percutaneous coronary interventions.

We have the shortest waiting time for nonemergency surgery in the world; England has one of the longest. In Canada, a country of 35 million citizens, 1 million patients now wait for surgery and another million wait to see specialists.

When my friend, cardiac surgeon Peter Alivizatos, returned to Greece after 10 years heading the heart transplantation program at Baylor University in Dallas, the one-year heart transplant survival rate there was 50%—five-year survival was only 35%. He soon increased those numbers to 94% one-year and 90% five-year survival, which is what we achieve in the U.S. So the next time you hear that the U.S. is No. 37, remember that Greece is No. 14. Cuba, by the way, is No. 39.

But the issue is only partly about quality. As we have all heard, the U.S. spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product for health care than any other country.

Actually, health-care spending now increases more moderately than it has in previous decades. Food, energy, housing and health care consume the same share of American spending today (55%) that they did in 1960 (53%).

So what does this money buy? Certainly some goes to inefficiencies, corporate profits, and costs that should be lowered by professional liability reform and national, free-market insurance access by allowing for competition across state lines. But the majority goes to a long list of advantages that American citizens now expect: the easiest access, the shortest waiting times the widest choice of physicians and hospitals, and constant availability of health care to elderly Americans. What we need now is insurance and liability reform—not health-care reform.

Who determines how much a nation should pay for its health? Is 17% too much, or too little? What better way could there be to dedicate our national resources than toward the health and productivity of our citizens?

Perhaps it's not that America spends too much on health care, but that other nations don't spend enough.

cool the nosejob-expert does the typical cherry-picking. let's see where is the USA #1? ah responsiveness! ergo, isn't health care essentially responsiveness: #1,#1,#1.
the second trick is even better, hahahah. US is #1 in spending, because the others fail to spend more. haha. nice.

So the subjective nature of the WHO opinions or excuse me "unbiased study" is OK with you?

And tell me when did spending less on research development and implementation ever give anyone better service.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Mark B. Constantian: Where U.S. Health Care Ranks Number One - WSJ.com

cool the nosejob-expert does the typical cherry-picking. let's see where is the USA #1? ah responsiveness! ergo, isn't health care essentially responsiveness: #1,#1,#1.
the second trick is even better, hahahah. US is #1 in spending, because the others fail to spend more. haha. nice.

So the subjective nature of the WHO opinions or excuse me "unbiased study" is OK with you?

And tell me when did spending less on research development and implementation ever give anyone better service.

the WHO is quite open in where the weak aspects of the study lie. the say so in their introduction to the report, and in the explanatory notes. what is not believable is this conspiratorial crap that they are out to get the USA and that that is the reason why the USA is ranking where they do. to me it is also very transparent how certain people argue to discredit this study by finding a way to throw out data that does not agree with their preconceived notion, in this case the notion that the USA is #1.

 

[Skull Pilot]

cool the nosejob-expert does the typical cherry-picking. let's see where is the USA #1? ah responsiveness! ergo, isn't health care essentially responsiveness: #1,#1,#1.
the second trick is even better, hahahah. US is #1 in spending, because the others fail to spend more. haha. nice.

So the subjective nature of the WHO opinions or excuse me "unbiased study" is OK with you?

And tell me when did spending less on research development and implementation ever give anyone better service.

the WHO is quite open in where the weak aspects of the study lie. the say so in their introduction to the report, and in the explanatory notes. what is not believable is this conspiratorial crap that they are out to get the USA and that that is the reason why the USA is ranking where they do. to me it is also very transparent how certain people argue to discredit this study by finding a way to throw out data that does not agree with their preconceived notion, in this case the notion that the USA is #1.

Then tell me why did a country like Greece whose survival rates from heart transplants was 50% got a higher rank than the US? tell me would you rather go to a hospital in Greece or one in the US?

WHO will assume any country without universal care has worse care than a country with universal care.

 

[uscitizen]

All thses experts on the WHO on here. It is simply amazing.

 

[L.K.Eder]

So the subjective nature of the WHO opinions or excuse me "unbiased study" is OK with you?

And tell me when did spending less on research development and implementation ever give anyone better service.

the WHO is quite open in where the weak aspects of the study lie. the say so in their introduction to the report, and in the explanatory notes. what is not believable is this conspiratorial crap that they are out to get the USA and that that is the reason why the USA is ranking where they do. to me it is also very transparent how certain people argue to discredit this study by finding a way to throw out data that does not agree with their preconceived notion, in this case the notion that the USA is #1.

Then tell me why did a country like Greece whose survival rates from heart transplants was 50% got a higher rank than the US? tell me would you rather go to a hospital in Greece or one in the US?

WHO will assume any country without universal care has worse care than a country with universal care.

maybe the heart transplantation survival rate is not the most important parameter when you try to measure the whole system, level AND distribution.

you can always cherry pick one parameter and ask why, why, why?

what about the liposuction survival rate? or how long is the waiting list for a correctional surgery for a botched nosejob (ask constantian)?

as for where i would like to go into a hospital, this is a great time to ask me that. lol
anecdotal, of course, but i certainly would not go to deliver a child in a certain midtown manhattan hospital. haha

 

[PoliticalChic]

All thses experts on the WHO on here. It is simply amazing.

Ya' think maybe the WHO is a good enough expert on the WHO?

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

 

[JimH52]

Excellent! Tea Baggers should love that video!

 

[JimH52]

All thses experts on the WHO on here. It is simply amazing.

Ya' think maybe the WHO is a good enough expert on the WHO?

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

So Chic, can you spin this into a Tea Bagger rational also. You guys amaze me!

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Yup, we are number 50 in life expectancy. Maybe we can make another video named "We are Number 50!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

All thses experts on the WHO on here. It is simply amazing.

Ya' think maybe the WHO is a good enough expert on the WHO?

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

So Chic, can you spin this into a Tea Bagger rational also. You guys amaze me!

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Yup, we are number 50 in life expectancy. Maybe we can make another video named "We are Number 50!"

Clearly you are easily amazed.

My post quoted the WHO.

Please attempt to explain why the statement about WHO/UN made in public announcement by WHO/UN is not dispositive about WHO/UN.

If you can.

Further, what is the "Tea Bagger rational" reference?

It it meant to be some sort of insult? If so, what is the reason?

Are you not capable of a raional, civil discussion?

 

[Cecilie1200]

All thses experts on the WHO on here. It is simply amazing.

Doesn't take an expert. Just someone who can and will read. It isn't as though anyone's been keeping WHO's criteria a secret.

 

[Toronado3800]

Ya' think maybe the WHO is a good enough expert on the WHO?

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

I was just looking at a general map. Looks like Cuba and most of the world's least reputable countries score lower than us in life expectancy.

Columbia, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Costa Rica come to mind as countries above the U.S. as sources of internal data I would question though.

Would you figure the data is good with an accuracy of +/- 10 or +/-5? Rankings are somewhat subjective. After all, if fuel economy is very important to you that 92 Geo Metro is one heck of a car, a top 10 on your list.

************
Good god. Tea bagging is a semi-pornographic 1st person shooter gaming term among the younger folks I know. Are we using it in them terms?

 

[JimH52]

If we have the best health care system in the world, as has been stated, on this board, shouldn't our life expectancy be higher than 50. Is that rational?

 

[Skull Pilot]

If we have the best health care system in the world, as has been stated, on this board, shouldn't our life expectancy be higher than 50. Is that rational?

the best health care in the world does not reduce deaths from risky behavior.

Americans higher lower life expectancy can be explained by behavioral causes.

Accidents, Murders, Preemies, Fat, and U.S. Life Expectancy - Reason Magazine

 

[Munin]

Already your argument is proved wrong by the existence of this very thread we are posting in, "we re number 37". All countries that re ranked above the US don't seem to have had a problem with making less costs (in general) than what the private healthcare system of the US has been doing for decades. What the US government has been doing for the last decades by "interfering" was subsidizing the private healthcare industry, as such they have never really interfered with the private healthcare system (until now). And no this has nothing to do with a magician show, unless you are in a constant state of illusion and denial to accept reality.

Are you saying the government hasn't been involved in medical care since now and healthcare in other countries is more cost effective?

I contend we already have a form of universal healthcare. In general: If you get shot and show up at a hospital they give you a level of life saving treatment. Maybe a 1990's level of tech gets used on ya, you won't get the best rehab, and VIP 70 year old Presidents are more likely to live through a few bullets to the chest, but you still get treated even if you're broke or not a citizen.

In specific I know a broke person with this rare Alpha1 disease. Thanks to substandard insurance (her "fault" for not holding a decent job) She has to doctor shop a lot. She gets treatments, pays some minimum payments for 6 months, then has to move on to a doctor she doesn't owe $xxxx to. Who flips the bill? We do. Almost directly through higher costs for our treatment just like shoplifters drive up cost at the grocery store. Indirectly because I suspect doctors get big government "welfare" like deductions or tax credits for services not paid for.

yes I m saying that "healthcare that has to be provided for a whole population" (also the sick and the poor) is more cost effective in those other countries ranked above the US. I m also saying that the government has almost never been as invovelved in the US healthcare system as governments of those higher ranked countries (up untill now).

If a healthcare system is providing only healthcare for the rich and the healthy, then the healthcare system will be very cost effective and profitable and in the US it doesn't even seem to do that. Private healthcare is heavely subsidised by the government, I would even see it as a form of corruption (since it is getting money for services it didn't provide, other countries with proportionally much less money available do seem to be able to provide healthcare for more people). A healthcare system is not supposed to be profitable (it is supposed to provide qualitative healthcare to the whole population of a country: which means quantity and quality), would your approach be similar when talking about the military: should the military be profitable? I agree that it should be cost-effective, but not at the cost of losing too much safety.

You get treated if you re poor/broke, yes: but you get a bill that you can not afford to pay. This person will be digging his own financial grave with healthcarebills, I also suspect that doctors will have an unofficial list with all the "defaulters" on it so they can avoid treating those people and be more cost-effective and profitable as a result.

Another thing, ever heard of the oath that doctors re supposed to take?

here is the modern version of it (Hippocratic Oath):

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

NOVA | Doctors' Diaries | The Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version | PBS

Maybe doctors in the US should change the name of it to the "hippocritic oath" for US doctors, since a lot of doctors working for private hospitals seem to have replaced the "helping patients" part of it with "making more profits"/"being more cost effective"

 

[midcan5]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzuvpZwFyUs[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0qPYkfNMPg&NR=1[/ame]