If you're unhappy in this country it's not the country's fault. It's you.

MACAULAY

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Messages
5,102
Reaction score
2,342
Points
390
You're just a negative and miserable person if you don't love that you've been blessed with the chance to thrive in a country with so much opportunity. This country is amazing. Stop blaming it for your anger and ineptness. You need to sort that shit out in therapy.
__________

Best I can tell, Liberals/Progressives/Socialists become that way for one (or more) of five reasons:

1) Guilt (from being born rich, or beautiful...maybe also famous, via casting couch of Harvey Weinstein)
2) Jealousy (from not being born rich, beautiful or famous)
3) Unhappiness (like those really really ugly women you see in the Women's Rights Marches; or the Sexually Confused)
4) Loves the Free Shit
5) Insanity

Makes up almost half of America and all of California---very scary.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
18,155
Reaction score
3,870
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Show me ONE person that doesn't have access to health care.
Exactly. We all know that emergency rooms don't turn anybody away. Those without insurance can always go there.
Well done, you just made an excellent point for the public option.
No..... he pointed out, there already is a public option.

You, without any insurance, can go to the ER, and get health care.

Why do we need a public option? And by the way, name one public option that has ever been more efficient than the private options?

We have a massive public health care system. We have publicly funded clinics, publicly funded hospitals, we have the VA, we have Medicaid, we have Medicare.

See this is actually why we know your system sucks. We have all that, and you people are still whining and still complaining. We have everything you demand, and all that has happened, is that you demand even more.

That's proof your system is garbage. Because if it worked great, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Healthcare: A Tale of Two ERs | MOMocrats Legacy Posts: 2007-2011

Democrat, goes to a publicly funded clinic. Horrific experience.
Goes to a private clinic. Wonderful experience.

Democrat conclusion..... we need more people going to the public one, and eliminate the private one.

That's how idiotic you people are.
That is one hell of an unhinged rant. !! Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about. Being able to go to an ER where you will be stabilized and sent on your way is not "access to health care" It's a matter of quality. People do die from not having adequate care.
  1. New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of ...
    New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coveragedeaths-annually...
    Sep 17, 2009 · The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. “The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured ...

    [*]
    • Author: David Cecere
    [*][PDF]
    Uninsured and Dying Because of It - urban.org
    https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/31386/411588-Uninsured-and-Dying...
    ance). Second, the number of deaths as if the uninsured had insurance is mul-tiplied by 1.25. This yields an estimate of the actual number of deaths among the uninsured, reflecting the 25 percent higher mortality rate among the unin-sured found by the above-described research. Using the IOM’s analysis of …
I've read that study as well. Go and look how they came up with that number, and you find estimates, based on assumptions, based on estimates. They do not have a single specific example, of even one person that they can point to which.... if they had health insurance they would have lived, but because they didn't, they died.

Not even one. They don't even use numbers of actual deaths, which they assumed only happened because of health insurance.

It is exclusively assumptions and estimates. Nothing concrete.

Not a convincing argument.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
18,155
Reaction score
3,870
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
They measured health care systems, based on everything EXCEPT... health care outcomes.
False. The WHO report to which I refer measures efficiency, and is completely dependent on outcomes.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAUegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1fI0cD1zr2EKAxVWMDp7c_

But I can see that you googled for a Forbes opinion piece and plagiarized it. Hey bro, we all have google.
This is actually the exact report I was referring to.

So this is from your link, and right off the bat, we can see that the quality of health care given, is not the primary focus.

Screen Shot 2019-09-15 at 5.32.26 PM.png


So just look at the information from your own link.

They have 5 total categories that are being evaluated.

Level of Health.
Equity of Health.
level of Responsiveness.
Equity of Responsiveness.
Fairness in Financing.

So right off the bat, you can see very clearly that 3 out of 5 categories have nothing to do with the ability of the health care system to identify an illness, treat the illness, and heal the patient.

Fairness in Financing, equality of responsiveness and equality of health, have nothing to do with the quality of the care. It's simply measuring how socialized the system is.

By that logic, Cuba would score pretty high, because Cuba has equal care... equally crap care... but equal care. They might not have Aspirin, but then.... no one does, so therefore it's equal, and equal is good. No rich person is able to get Aspirin when the poor cannot. Rich people are all equally told they can't get Aspirin, and the financing for the aspirin is equally shared by everyone.

Compared to the US, where rich can get more aspirin, they can pay for faster delivery of aspirin, and the financing is unequally levied to those who want aspirin. Of course everyone is able to get aspirin, but that's not good, because it's still not equal when the rich can get more.

Thus Cuba will score higher on three out of five categories, even while people in Cuba often can't find any medications at all.

That leaves level of responsiveness and level of health.

So do either of those two categories actually look at the quality of the care?

Level of responsiveness. So your link, only referenced another report, again by the WHO, which again I've already read, but here it is anyway:
https://www.who.int/responsiveness/papers/paper21.pdf

So starting on Page 5, you can see a clear outline of how they determined "level of responsiveness".
They sent out an opinion survey, which gave patients a chance to give subjective answers.
The survey had questions regarding the following topics of Dignity, Autonomy, Quality of Amenities, Confidentiality, Prompt Attention, and overall.

Again... nearly all of these are subjective, not empirical.

For example, Dignity is subjective. It's not something that can be impartially measured. Two people can be treated exactly the same, and one claim it was horrific, and the other think it was great treatment.

Regardless, it's not a measure of the quality of care. The care could be the best care in the world, and the person say they were not treated with dignity.

Quality of Amenities. Again subjective. One person can be ecstatic they have a ceiling fan to keep them cool, while another can be ticked off they don't have wifi and cable TV to watch.

Regardless, it still does not measure the quality of the actual care. If I die from my illness, the fact they had HBO and STARZ in all the rooms, doesn't matter much.

The only thing in this category that actually relates to quality of care, is response time. Unfortunately, even there, some of the questions were worded poorly, and were subjective. For example, they asked was the wait time to see a doctor reasonable? Well reasonable is subjective. Most Americans would be shocked by the 3 month long wait in Canada to see a doctor. But in Canada, that is considered "reasonable". In the UK, if people wait a month to see a doctor, and that is considered 'reasonable'.

FYI, I'm not making this up. Steven Crowder interviewed a patient who waited 6 months for knee surgery in Canada. When he pointed out that in the US, the wait time was under a week, the Canadian patient said he was lying, because all appointments are months long. Again, to her (the patient in Canada) waiting months on months was normal.

So if people in the US wait a week, and think that is unreasonable, and people in Canada wait a month and think that is very reasonable, we would look bad in comparison, while having the better quality of care.

So that leaves just Level of Health.

Level of health, spans many things, and not all of which are connected to the quality of care.
That's why they say level of health, and not level of care. Level of care would imply looking at the actual quality of care. Level of health, can mean many things.

For example life expectancy. Life expectancy is affected by many things that the health care sector has no control over. Such as auto fatalities. So unless you expect doctors to run out on the highway, and stop people from crashing... then that is a large affect on life expectancy, that has nothing to do with health care. Equally, homicides, have nothing to do with health care.

Then you have efficiency, which you mentioned before.

I'm not even sure what the point of that is. Does it matter how 'efficient the system is, if you die?

Really? If you die, when you could have lived.... does it matter if they let you die very efficiently?

Would not the better measurement be, survival rates? The rate at which the health care system diagnoses, treats, and heals patients? Would not that be the defacto standard of the quality of care, rather than how efficiently it does it?

Because I can say for certain, that would matter more to me. If I end up in a grave, I'm not sure I'd care much about how efficiently the system got me into a grave. Living, and surviving, would be a far more important to any patient.

I guarantee that if you have a person offered the option of going to two different hospitals, one with a 50% chance of surviving but extremely efficient, and the other very inefficient, with a 90% survival rate.... they are all going for the inefficient hospital. Every single one of them. Guarantee it.

So I would even make the clear case that even their category of "Level of Health" is only loosely connected to the quality of the care.

Regardless, at the very best.... the most generous I can be with the WHO report, only 1/5th of the entire report, even related to the quality of health care services, and that is dubious at best.

So when you judge national health care systems, based on every metric, but the one that counts.... survival rates.... then yes, the US fair poorly when you don't care about the quality of the care.
 
Last edited:

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,451
Reaction score
2,228
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Show me ONE person that doesn't have access to health care.
Exactly. We all know that emergency rooms don't turn anybody away. Those without insurance can always go there.
Well done, you just made an excellent point for the public option.
No..... he pointed out, there already is a public option.

You, without any insurance, can go to the ER, and get health care.

Why do we need a public option? And by the way, name one public option that has ever been more efficient than the private options?

We have a massive public health care system. We have publicly funded clinics, publicly funded hospitals, we have the VA, we have Medicaid, we have Medicare.

See this is actually why we know your system sucks. We have all that, and you people are still whining and still complaining. We have everything you demand, and all that has happened, is that you demand even more.

That's proof your system is garbage. Because if it worked great, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Healthcare: A Tale of Two ERs | MOMocrats Legacy Posts: 2007-2011

Democrat, goes to a publicly funded clinic. Horrific experience.
Goes to a private clinic. Wonderful experience.

Democrat conclusion..... we need more people going to the public one, and eliminate the private one.

That's how idiotic you people are.
That is one hell of an unhinged rant. !! Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about. Being able to go to an ER where you will be stabilized and sent on your way is not "access to health care" It's a matter of quality. People do die from not having adequate care.
  1. New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of ...
    New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coveragedeaths-annually...
    Sep 17, 2009 · The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. “The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured ...

    [*]
    • Author: David Cecere
    [*][PDF]
    Uninsured and Dying Because of It - urban.org
    https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/31386/411588-Uninsured-and-Dying...
    ance). Second, the number of deaths as if the uninsured had insurance is mul-tiplied by 1.25. This yields an estimate of the actual number of deaths among the uninsured, reflecting the 25 percent higher mortality rate among the unin-sured found by the above-described research. Using the IOM’s analysis of …
I've read that study as well. Go and look how they came up with that number, and you find estimates, based on assumptions, based on estimates. They do not have a single specific example, of even one person that they can point to which.... if they had health insurance they would have lived, but because they didn't, they died.

Not even one. They don't even use numbers of actual deaths, which they assumed only happened because of health insurance.

It is exclusively assumptions and estimates. Nothing concrete.

Not a convincing argument.
Billy Koehler’s death, from cardiac arrest after his implanted defibrillator ran out of batteries, is a testament to how someone can perish from lack of access to health care. Over the past several years Koehler repeatedly traveled to Washington to tell lawmakers about her brother.
Yes, People Die When They Don't Have Access To Health Care
www.huffpost.com/entry/people-die-without-health-care_n_5910b4e8e4b0104c7351257b
These Stories Refute The Idea People Don't Die From A Lack ...
https://www.bustle.com/p/these-20-stories-refute-the-idea-that-people-dont-die-from-a...
  • Author: Morgan Brinlee
    1. Stepfather Died In Agony. "My stepfather died in agony in Idaho due to lack of access to health …
    2. Cancer Survivor Unable To Afford Follow-Up Screenings. "My mother is dead because she …
    3. This Is Erika. Elizabeth Blumberg shared a photograph of a woman she identified as Erika, writing …
    4. A Mother With Pancreatic Cancer. "From personal experience, I watched my beautiful mother die a …
    See all full list on bustle.com
Now shut the fuck up
 
Last edited:

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
18,155
Reaction score
3,870
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Exactly. We all know that emergency rooms don't turn anybody away. Those without insurance can always go there.
Well done, you just made an excellent point for the public option.
No..... he pointed out, there already is a public option.

You, without any insurance, can go to the ER, and get health care.

Why do we need a public option? And by the way, name one public option that has ever been more efficient than the private options?

We have a massive public health care system. We have publicly funded clinics, publicly funded hospitals, we have the VA, we have Medicaid, we have Medicare.

See this is actually why we know your system sucks. We have all that, and you people are still whining and still complaining. We have everything you demand, and all that has happened, is that you demand even more.

That's proof your system is garbage. Because if it worked great, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Healthcare: A Tale of Two ERs | MOMocrats Legacy Posts: 2007-2011

Democrat, goes to a publicly funded clinic. Horrific experience.
Goes to a private clinic. Wonderful experience.

Democrat conclusion..... we need more people going to the public one, and eliminate the private one.

That's how idiotic you people are.
That is one hell of an unhinged rant. !! Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about. Being able to go to an ER where you will be stabilized and sent on your way is not "access to health care" It's a matter of quality. People do die from not having adequate care.
  1. New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of ...
    New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coveragedeaths-annually...
    Sep 17, 2009 · The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. “The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured ...

    [*]
    • Author: David Cecere
    [*][PDF]
    Uninsured and Dying Because of It - urban.org
    https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/31386/411588-Uninsured-and-Dying...
    ance). Second, the number of deaths as if the uninsured had insurance is mul-tiplied by 1.25. This yields an estimate of the actual number of deaths among the uninsured, reflecting the 25 percent higher mortality rate among the unin-sured found by the above-described research. Using the IOM’s analysis of …
I've read that study as well. Go and look how they came up with that number, and you find estimates, based on assumptions, based on estimates. They do not have a single specific example, of even one person that they can point to which.... if they had health insurance they would have lived, but because they didn't, they died.

Not even one. They don't even use numbers of actual deaths, which they assumed only happened because of health insurance.

It is exclusively assumptions and estimates. Nothing concrete.

Not a convincing argument.
Billy Koehler’s death, from cardiac arrest after his implanted defibrillator ran out of batteries, is a testament to how someone can perish from lack of access to health care. Over the past several years Koehler repeatedly traveled to Washington to tell lawmakers about her brother.
Yes, People Die When They Don't Have Access To Health Care
www.huffpost.com/entry/people-die-without-health-care_n_5910b4e8e4b0104c7351257b
These Stories Refute The Idea People Don't Die From A Lack ...
https://www.bustle.com/p/these-20-stories-refute-the-idea-that-people-dont-die-from-a...
  • Author: Morgan Brinlee
    1. Stepfather Died In Agony. "My stepfather died in agony in Idaho due to lack of access to health …
    2. Cancer Survivor Unable To Afford Follow-Up Screenings. "My mother is dead because she …
    3. This Is Erika. Elizabeth Blumberg shared a photograph of a woman she identified as Erika, writing …
    4. A Mother With Pancreatic Cancer. "From personal experience, I watched my beautiful mother die a …
    See all full list on bustle.com
Again... read those reports. Read the Harvard study. It was estimates, based on assumptions. I have read the actual data from the Harvard report that your link references. They can't provide a single example of a person who went to a hospital without insurance, and was told to go home and die.

I got treatment myself. I know others that got Chemo treatment. You can keep posting the same faulty links, and I'll keep refuting them.

Repeating lies, just makes you a lying parrot that can't think for yourself. But then again, we all know that about you.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,451
Reaction score
2,228
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
Well done, you just made an excellent point for the public option.
No..... he pointed out, there already is a public option.

You, without any insurance, can go to the ER, and get health care.

Why do we need a public option? And by the way, name one public option that has ever been more efficient than the private options?

We have a massive public health care system. We have publicly funded clinics, publicly funded hospitals, we have the VA, we have Medicaid, we have Medicare.

See this is actually why we know your system sucks. We have all that, and you people are still whining and still complaining. We have everything you demand, and all that has happened, is that you demand even more.

That's proof your system is garbage. Because if it worked great, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Healthcare: A Tale of Two ERs | MOMocrats Legacy Posts: 2007-2011

Democrat, goes to a publicly funded clinic. Horrific experience.
Goes to a private clinic. Wonderful experience.

Democrat conclusion..... we need more people going to the public one, and eliminate the private one.

That's how idiotic you people are.
That is one hell of an unhinged rant. !! Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about. Being able to go to an ER where you will be stabilized and sent on your way is not "access to health care" It's a matter of quality. People do die from not having adequate care.
  1. New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of ...
    New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coveragedeaths-annually...
    Sep 17, 2009 · The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. “The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured ...

    [*]
    • Author: David Cecere
    [*][PDF]
    Uninsured and Dying Because of It - urban.org
    https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/31386/411588-Uninsured-and-Dying...
    ance). Second, the number of deaths as if the uninsured had insurance is mul-tiplied by 1.25. This yields an estimate of the actual number of deaths among the uninsured, reflecting the 25 percent higher mortality rate among the unin-sured found by the above-described research. Using the IOM’s analysis of …
I've read that study as well. Go and look how they came up with that number, and you find estimates, based on assumptions, based on estimates. They do not have a single specific example, of even one person that they can point to which.... if they had health insurance they would have lived, but because they didn't, they died.

Not even one. They don't even use numbers of actual deaths, which they assumed only happened because of health insurance.

It is exclusively assumptions and estimates. Nothing concrete.

Not a convincing argument.
Billy Koehler’s death, from cardiac arrest after his implanted defibrillator ran out of batteries, is a testament to how someone can perish from lack of access to health care. Over the past several years Koehler repeatedly traveled to Washington to tell lawmakers about her brother.
Yes, People Die When They Don't Have Access To Health Care
www.huffpost.com/entry/people-die-without-health-care_n_5910b4e8e4b0104c7351257b
These Stories Refute The Idea People Don't Die From A Lack ...
https://www.bustle.com/p/these-20-stories-refute-the-idea-that-people-dont-die-from-a...
  • Author: Morgan Brinlee
    1. Stepfather Died In Agony. "My stepfather died in agony in Idaho due to lack of access to health …
    2. Cancer Survivor Unable To Afford Follow-Up Screenings. "My mother is dead because she …
    3. This Is Erika. Elizabeth Blumberg shared a photograph of a woman she identified as Erika, writing …
    4. A Mother With Pancreatic Cancer. "From personal experience, I watched my beautiful mother die a …
    See all full list on bustle.com
Again... read those reports. Read the Harvard study. It was estimates, based on assumptions. I have read the actual data from the Harvard report that your link references. They can't provide a single example of a person who went to a hospital without insurance, and was told to go home and die.

I got treatment myself. I know others that got Chemo treatment. You can keep posting the same faulty links, and I'll keep refuting them.

Repeating lies, just makes you a lying parrot that can't think for yourself. But then again, we all know that about you.
You can refute the two links that I just posted? These are not real people.? Go ahead. I'm waiting. I don't give a fuck about your treatment or your claim that you paid cash. Most people cant. Most people without insurance get a band aid. People without insurance show up at the ER much sicker than they would have been if they had preventive and ongoing care. Many people without insurance wind up back in the ER because they did not get follow up care. The ER is the most expensive way to get care and we the tax payers foot the bill for the uninsured who can't pay for it. Your interpretation of the studies that you cite not mean shit.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,451
Reaction score
2,228
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
They measured health care systems, based on everything EXCEPT... health care outcomes.
False. The WHO report to which I refer measures efficiency, and is completely dependent on outcomes.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAUegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1fI0cD1zr2EKAxVWMDp7c_

But I can see that you googled for a Forbes opinion piece and plagiarized it. Hey bro, we all have google.
This is actually the exact report I was referring to.

So this is from your link, and right off the bat, we can see that the quality of health care given, is not the primary focus.

View attachment 279472

So just look at the information from your own link.

They have 5 total categories that are being evaluated.

Level of Health.
Equity of Health.
level of Responsiveness.
Equity of Responsiveness.
Fairness in Financing.

So right off the bat, you can see very clearly that 3 out of 5 categories have nothing to do with the ability of the health care system to identify an illness, treat the illness, and heal the patient.

Fairness in Financing, equality of responsiveness and equality of health, have nothing to do with the quality of the care. It's simply measuring how socialized the system is.

By that logic, Cuba would score pretty high, because Cuba has equal care... equally crap care... but equal care. They might not have Aspirin, but then.... no one does, so therefore it's equal, and equal is good. No rich person is able to get Aspirin when the poor cannot. Rich people are all equally told they can't get Aspirin, and the financing for the aspirin is equally shared by everyone.

Compared to the US, where rich can get more aspirin, they can pay for faster delivery of aspirin, and the financing is unequally levied to those who want aspirin. Of course everyone is able to get aspirin, but that's not good, because it's still not equal when the rich can get more.

Thus Cuba will score higher on three out of five categories, even while people in Cuba often can't find any medications at all.

That leaves level of responsiveness and level of health.

So do either of those two categories actually look at the quality of the care?

Level of responsiveness. So your link, only referenced another report, again by the WHO, which again I've already read, but here it is anyway:
https://www.who.int/responsiveness/papers/paper21.pdf

So starting on Page 5, you can see a clear outline of how they determined "level of responsiveness".
They sent out an opinion survey, which gave patients a chance to give subjective answers.
The survey had questions regarding the following topics of Dignity, Autonomy, Quality of Amenities, Confidentiality, Prompt Attention, and overall.

Again... nearly all of these are subjective, not empirical.

For example, Dignity is subjective. It's not something that can be impartially measured. Two people can be treated exactly the same, and one claim it was horrific, and the other think it was great treatment.

Regardless, it's not a measure of the quality of care. The care could be the best care in the world, and the person say they were not treated with dignity.

Quality of Amenities. Again subjective. One person can be ecstatic they have a ceiling fan to keep them cool, while another can be ticked off they don't have wifi and cable TV to watch.

Regardless, it still does not measure the quality of the actual care. If I die from my illness, the fact they had HBO and STARZ in all the rooms, doesn't matter much.

The only thing in this category that actually relates to quality of care, is response time. Unfortunately, even there, some of the questions were worded poorly, and were subjective. For example, they asked was the wait time to see a doctor reasonable? Well reasonable is subjective. Most Americans would be shocked by the 3 month long wait in Canada to see a doctor. But in Canada, that is considered "reasonable". In the UK, if people wait a month to see a doctor, and that is considered 'reasonable'.

FYI, I'm not making this up. Steven Crowder interviewed a patient who waited 6 months for knee surgery in Canada. When he pointed out that in the US, the wait time was under a week, the Canadian patient said he was lying, because all appointments are months long. Again, to her (the patient in Canada) waiting months on months was normal.

So if people in the US wait a week, and think that is unreasonable, and people in Canada wait a month and think that is very reasonable, we would look bad in comparison, while having the better quality of care.

So that leaves just Level of Health.

Level of health, spans many things, and not all of which are connected to the quality of care.
That's why they say level of health, and not level of care. Level of care would imply looking at the actual quality of care. Level of health, can mean many things.

For example life expectancy. Life expectancy is affected by many things that the health care sector has no control over. Such as auto fatalities. So unless you expect doctors to run out on the highway, and stop people from crashing... then that is a large affect on life expectancy, that has nothing to do with health care. Equally, homicides, have nothing to do with health care.

Then you have efficiency, which you mentioned before.

I'm not even sure what the point of that is. Does it matter how 'efficient the system is, if you die?

Really? If you die, when you could have lived.... does it matter if they let you die very efficiently?

Would not the better measurement be, survival rates? The rate at which the health care system diagnoses, treats, and heals patients? Would not that be the defacto standard of the quality of care, rather than how efficiently it does it?

Because I can say for certain, that would matter more to me. If I end up in a grave, I'm not sure I'd care much about how efficiently the system got me into a grave. Living, and surviving, would be a far more important to any patient.

I guarantee that if you have a person offered the option of going to two different hospitals, one with a 50% chance of surviving but extremely efficient, and the other very inefficient, with a 90% survival rate.... they are all going for the inefficient hospital. Every single one of them. Guarantee it.

So I would even make the clear case that even their category of "Level of Health" is only loosely connected to the quality of the care.

Regardless, at the very best.... the most generous I can be with the WHO report, only 1/5th of the entire report, even related to the quality of health care services, and that is dubious at best.

So when you judge national health care systems, based on every metric, but the one that counts.... survival rates.... then yes, the US fair poorly when you don't care about the quality of the care.
And not a god damned word of that screed proves that people do not suffer and die when they do not have access to health care, and for most people that means health care insurance
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
18,155
Reaction score
3,870
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
No..... he pointed out, there already is a public option.

You, without any insurance, can go to the ER, and get health care.

Why do we need a public option? And by the way, name one public option that has ever been more efficient than the private options?

We have a massive public health care system. We have publicly funded clinics, publicly funded hospitals, we have the VA, we have Medicaid, we have Medicare.

See this is actually why we know your system sucks. We have all that, and you people are still whining and still complaining. We have everything you demand, and all that has happened, is that you demand even more.

That's proof your system is garbage. Because if it worked great, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Healthcare: A Tale of Two ERs | MOMocrats Legacy Posts: 2007-2011

Democrat, goes to a publicly funded clinic. Horrific experience.
Goes to a private clinic. Wonderful experience.

Democrat conclusion..... we need more people going to the public one, and eliminate the private one.

That's how idiotic you people are.
That is one hell of an unhinged rant. !! Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about. Being able to go to an ER where you will be stabilized and sent on your way is not "access to health care" It's a matter of quality. People do die from not having adequate care.
  1. New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of ...
    New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coveragedeaths-annually...
    Sep 17, 2009 · The study, conducted at Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance, found that uninsured, working-age Americans have a 40 percent higher risk of death than their privately insured counterparts, up from a 25 percent excess death rate found in 1993. “The uninsured have a higher risk of death when compared to the privately insured ...

    [*]
    • Author: David Cecere
    [*][PDF]
    Uninsured and Dying Because of It - urban.org
    https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/31386/411588-Uninsured-and-Dying...
    ance). Second, the number of deaths as if the uninsured had insurance is mul-tiplied by 1.25. This yields an estimate of the actual number of deaths among the uninsured, reflecting the 25 percent higher mortality rate among the unin-sured found by the above-described research. Using the IOM’s analysis of …
I've read that study as well. Go and look how they came up with that number, and you find estimates, based on assumptions, based on estimates. They do not have a single specific example, of even one person that they can point to which.... if they had health insurance they would have lived, but because they didn't, they died.

Not even one. They don't even use numbers of actual deaths, which they assumed only happened because of health insurance.

It is exclusively assumptions and estimates. Nothing concrete.

Not a convincing argument.
Billy Koehler’s death, from cardiac arrest after his implanted defibrillator ran out of batteries, is a testament to how someone can perish from lack of access to health care. Over the past several years Koehler repeatedly traveled to Washington to tell lawmakers about her brother.
Yes, People Die When They Don't Have Access To Health Care
www.huffpost.com/entry/people-die-without-health-care_n_5910b4e8e4b0104c7351257b
These Stories Refute The Idea People Don't Die From A Lack ...
https://www.bustle.com/p/these-20-stories-refute-the-idea-that-people-dont-die-from-a...
  • Author: Morgan Brinlee
    1. Stepfather Died In Agony. "My stepfather died in agony in Idaho due to lack of access to health …
    2. Cancer Survivor Unable To Afford Follow-Up Screenings. "My mother is dead because she …
    3. This Is Erika. Elizabeth Blumberg shared a photograph of a woman she identified as Erika, writing …
    4. A Mother With Pancreatic Cancer. "From personal experience, I watched my beautiful mother die a …
    See all full list on bustle.com
Again... read those reports. Read the Harvard study. It was estimates, based on assumptions. I have read the actual data from the Harvard report that your link references. They can't provide a single example of a person who went to a hospital without insurance, and was told to go home and die.

I got treatment myself. I know others that got Chemo treatment. You can keep posting the same faulty links, and I'll keep refuting them.

Repeating lies, just makes you a lying parrot that can't think for yourself. But then again, we all know that about you.
You can refute the two links that I just posted? These are not real people.? Go ahead. I'm waiting. I don't give a fuck about your treatment or your claim that you paid cash. Most people cant. Most people without insurance get a band aid. People without insurance show up at the ER much sicker than they would have been if they had preventive and ongoing care. Many people without insurance wind up back in the ER because they did not get follow up care. The ER is the most expensive way to get care and we the tax payers foot the bill for the uninsured who can't pay for it. Your interpretation of the studies that you cite not mean shit.
Both of your links referenced the exact same Harvard report.

I have personally read the Harvard report. They based those numbers on estimates.... assumptions, and more estimates.

It's not my interpretation... it's what the Harvard report says. Period.

They are not real people.

If you are sick and refuse to go to the hospital, that's on you. There are dozens of free clinics. There is Medicaid. You can go to the Hospital, and get Chemo for cancer even, without any insurance whatsoever.

This is fact.

So.... I just refuted your links.

Thanks for stopping by.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
41,633
Reaction score
4,040
Points
1,855
So this is from your link, and right off the bat, we can see that the quality of health care given, is not the primary focus.
The focus is efficiency, which is measured using, among other things, outcomes.

You're not going to slither out of this.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
18,155
Reaction score
3,870
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
They measured health care systems, based on everything EXCEPT... health care outcomes.
False. The WHO report to which I refer measures efficiency, and is completely dependent on outcomes.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAUegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1fI0cD1zr2EKAxVWMDp7c_

But I can see that you googled for a Forbes opinion piece and plagiarized it. Hey bro, we all have google.
This is actually the exact report I was referring to.

So this is from your link, and right off the bat, we can see that the quality of health care given, is not the primary focus.

View attachment 279472

So just look at the information from your own link.

They have 5 total categories that are being evaluated.

Level of Health.
Equity of Health.
level of Responsiveness.
Equity of Responsiveness.
Fairness in Financing.

So right off the bat, you can see very clearly that 3 out of 5 categories have nothing to do with the ability of the health care system to identify an illness, treat the illness, and heal the patient.

Fairness in Financing, equality of responsiveness and equality of health, have nothing to do with the quality of the care. It's simply measuring how socialized the system is.

By that logic, Cuba would score pretty high, because Cuba has equal care... equally crap care... but equal care. They might not have Aspirin, but then.... no one does, so therefore it's equal, and equal is good. No rich person is able to get Aspirin when the poor cannot. Rich people are all equally told they can't get Aspirin, and the financing for the aspirin is equally shared by everyone.

Compared to the US, where rich can get more aspirin, they can pay for faster delivery of aspirin, and the financing is unequally levied to those who want aspirin. Of course everyone is able to get aspirin, but that's not good, because it's still not equal when the rich can get more.

Thus Cuba will score higher on three out of five categories, even while people in Cuba often can't find any medications at all.

That leaves level of responsiveness and level of health.

So do either of those two categories actually look at the quality of the care?

Level of responsiveness. So your link, only referenced another report, again by the WHO, which again I've already read, but here it is anyway:
https://www.who.int/responsiveness/papers/paper21.pdf

So starting on Page 5, you can see a clear outline of how they determined "level of responsiveness".
They sent out an opinion survey, which gave patients a chance to give subjective answers.
The survey had questions regarding the following topics of Dignity, Autonomy, Quality of Amenities, Confidentiality, Prompt Attention, and overall.

Again... nearly all of these are subjective, not empirical.

For example, Dignity is subjective. It's not something that can be impartially measured. Two people can be treated exactly the same, and one claim it was horrific, and the other think it was great treatment.

Regardless, it's not a measure of the quality of care. The care could be the best care in the world, and the person say they were not treated with dignity.

Quality of Amenities. Again subjective. One person can be ecstatic they have a ceiling fan to keep them cool, while another can be ticked off they don't have wifi and cable TV to watch.

Regardless, it still does not measure the quality of the actual care. If I die from my illness, the fact they had HBO and STARZ in all the rooms, doesn't matter much.

The only thing in this category that actually relates to quality of care, is response time. Unfortunately, even there, some of the questions were worded poorly, and were subjective. For example, they asked was the wait time to see a doctor reasonable? Well reasonable is subjective. Most Americans would be shocked by the 3 month long wait in Canada to see a doctor. But in Canada, that is considered "reasonable". In the UK, if people wait a month to see a doctor, and that is considered 'reasonable'.

FYI, I'm not making this up. Steven Crowder interviewed a patient who waited 6 months for knee surgery in Canada. When he pointed out that in the US, the wait time was under a week, the Canadian patient said he was lying, because all appointments are months long. Again, to her (the patient in Canada) waiting months on months was normal.

So if people in the US wait a week, and think that is unreasonable, and people in Canada wait a month and think that is very reasonable, we would look bad in comparison, while having the better quality of care.

So that leaves just Level of Health.

Level of health, spans many things, and not all of which are connected to the quality of care.
That's why they say level of health, and not level of care. Level of care would imply looking at the actual quality of care. Level of health, can mean many things.

For example life expectancy. Life expectancy is affected by many things that the health care sector has no control over. Such as auto fatalities. So unless you expect doctors to run out on the highway, and stop people from crashing... then that is a large affect on life expectancy, that has nothing to do with health care. Equally, homicides, have nothing to do with health care.

Then you have efficiency, which you mentioned before.

I'm not even sure what the point of that is. Does it matter how 'efficient the system is, if you die?

Really? If you die, when you could have lived.... does it matter if they let you die very efficiently?

Would not the better measurement be, survival rates? The rate at which the health care system diagnoses, treats, and heals patients? Would not that be the defacto standard of the quality of care, rather than how efficiently it does it?

Because I can say for certain, that would matter more to me. If I end up in a grave, I'm not sure I'd care much about how efficiently the system got me into a grave. Living, and surviving, would be a far more important to any patient.

I guarantee that if you have a person offered the option of going to two different hospitals, one with a 50% chance of surviving but extremely efficient, and the other very inefficient, with a 90% survival rate.... they are all going for the inefficient hospital. Every single one of them. Guarantee it.

So I would even make the clear case that even their category of "Level of Health" is only loosely connected to the quality of the care.

Regardless, at the very best.... the most generous I can be with the WHO report, only 1/5th of the entire report, even related to the quality of health care services, and that is dubious at best.

So when you judge national health care systems, based on every metric, but the one that counts.... survival rates.... then yes, the US fair poorly when you don't care about the quality of the care.
And not a god damned word of that screed proves that people do not suffer and die when they do not have access to health care, and for most people that means health care insurance
The US has higher 5-year survival rates, than any other country in the world.

5-Year survival rates, include everyone. Meaning.... Everyone.

5-Year survival rates, do not exclude people who don't have health insurance. You don't have insurance, and have cancer, and show up at the ER, and they start you on Chemo. If you die, that still counts towards 5-year survival rates.

Our survival rates are higher than anywhere else in the world. Period.

That means even if you are utterly poor, and have no insurance.... you still have a better chance of surviving an illness in the US, than you do anywhere else.

Why The US Has Better Cancer Survival Rates Than The Rest Of The World

To this day... we still lead the world in survival rates, for EVERYONE... not just the wealthy.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
18,155
Reaction score
3,870
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
So this is from your link, and right off the bat, we can see that the quality of health care given, is not the primary focus.
The focus is efficiency, which is measured using, among other things, outcomes.

You're not going to slither out of this.
I have no intention of slithering out of anything. The evidence is on my side. I'm going to fire back at everything you say. Truth beats opinion.

And I even said that the "Level of Health" catagory does have some loose connections to "outcomes". But loose, means loose. Again... when they included life expectancy, that includes homicides and auto fatalities. Unless you expect doctors to stop murderers and bad drivers.... that is not a reflection on health care.

I'll give you another example. They include mortality rates. Mortality rates are not the same as survival rates.

How? Because mortality is connected to the incident rates. Japan, notoriously has a low rate of breast cancer. This has to do with genetics, not the quality of the care.

Breast cancer survival rates are lower in Japan, by a pretty good margin. But because far fewer people in Japan get breast cancer, the mortality rate in Japan is lower.

What does this have to do with health care? Nothing.

If you have two islands with a million people.... Island A has no health care. Island B has 1st rate health care.

Island A has 2 incidences of breast cancer a year. Both die.
Island B has 50 incidences of breast cancer a year. 90% live.

Mortality rate for Island A is 2 per million people. Island B has a mortality rate of 5 per million people.

Looking at mortality rates, you would think Island A has better care... when they have no care at all.

Mortality rates are garbage. Using them in the WHO report is trash.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,451
Reaction score
2,228
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
They measured health care systems, based on everything EXCEPT... health care outcomes.
False. The WHO report to which I refer measures efficiency, and is completely dependent on outcomes.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAUegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1fI0cD1zr2EKAxVWMDp7c_

But I can see that you googled for a Forbes opinion piece and plagiarized it. Hey bro, we all have google.
This is actually the exact report I was referring to.

So this is from your link, and right off the bat, we can see that the quality of health care given, is not the primary focus.

View attachment 279472

So just look at the information from your own link.

They have 5 total categories that are being evaluated.

Level of Health.
Equity of Health.
level of Responsiveness.
Equity of Responsiveness.
Fairness in Financing.

So right off the bat, you can see very clearly that 3 out of 5 categories have nothing to do with the ability of the health care system to identify an illness, treat the illness, and heal the patient.

Fairness in Financing, equality of responsiveness and equality of health, have nothing to do with the quality of the care. It's simply measuring how socialized the system is.

By that logic, Cuba would score pretty high, because Cuba has equal care... equally crap care... but equal care. They might not have Aspirin, but then.... no one does, so therefore it's equal, and equal is good. No rich person is able to get Aspirin when the poor cannot. Rich people are all equally told they can't get Aspirin, and the financing for the aspirin is equally shared by everyone.

Compared to the US, where rich can get more aspirin, they can pay for faster delivery of aspirin, and the financing is unequally levied to those who want aspirin. Of course everyone is able to get aspirin, but that's not good, because it's still not equal when the rich can get more.

Thus Cuba will score higher on three out of five categories, even while people in Cuba often can't find any medications at all.

That leaves level of responsiveness and level of health.

So do either of those two categories actually look at the quality of the care?

Level of responsiveness. So your link, only referenced another report, again by the WHO, which again I've already read, but here it is anyway:
https://www.who.int/responsiveness/papers/paper21.pdf

So starting on Page 5, you can see a clear outline of how they determined "level of responsiveness".
They sent out an opinion survey, which gave patients a chance to give subjective answers.
The survey had questions regarding the following topics of Dignity, Autonomy, Quality of Amenities, Confidentiality, Prompt Attention, and overall.

Again... nearly all of these are subjective, not empirical.

For example, Dignity is subjective. It's not something that can be impartially measured. Two people can be treated exactly the same, and one claim it was horrific, and the other think it was great treatment.

Regardless, it's not a measure of the quality of care. The care could be the best care in the world, and the person say they were not treated with dignity.

Quality of Amenities. Again subjective. One person can be ecstatic they have a ceiling fan to keep them cool, while another can be ticked off they don't have wifi and cable TV to watch.

Regardless, it still does not measure the quality of the actual care. If I die from my illness, the fact they had HBO and STARZ in all the rooms, doesn't matter much.

The only thing in this category that actually relates to quality of care, is response time. Unfortunately, even there, some of the questions were worded poorly, and were subjective. For example, they asked was the wait time to see a doctor reasonable? Well reasonable is subjective. Most Americans would be shocked by the 3 month long wait in Canada to see a doctor. But in Canada, that is considered "reasonable". In the UK, if people wait a month to see a doctor, and that is considered 'reasonable'.

FYI, I'm not making this up. Steven Crowder interviewed a patient who waited 6 months for knee surgery in Canada. When he pointed out that in the US, the wait time was under a week, the Canadian patient said he was lying, because all appointments are months long. Again, to her (the patient in Canada) waiting months on months was normal.

So if people in the US wait a week, and think that is unreasonable, and people in Canada wait a month and think that is very reasonable, we would look bad in comparison, while having the better quality of care.

So that leaves just Level of Health.

Level of health, spans many things, and not all of which are connected to the quality of care.
That's why they say level of health, and not level of care. Level of care would imply looking at the actual quality of care. Level of health, can mean many things.

For example life expectancy. Life expectancy is affected by many things that the health care sector has no control over. Such as auto fatalities. So unless you expect doctors to run out on the highway, and stop people from crashing... then that is a large affect on life expectancy, that has nothing to do with health care. Equally, homicides, have nothing to do with health care.

Then you have efficiency, which you mentioned before.

I'm not even sure what the point of that is. Does it matter how 'efficient the system is, if you die?

Really? If you die, when you could have lived.... does it matter if they let you die very efficiently?

Would not the better measurement be, survival rates? The rate at which the health care system diagnoses, treats, and heals patients? Would not that be the defacto standard of the quality of care, rather than how efficiently it does it?

Because I can say for certain, that would matter more to me. If I end up in a grave, I'm not sure I'd care much about how efficiently the system got me into a grave. Living, and surviving, would be a far more important to any patient.

I guarantee that if you have a person offered the option of going to two different hospitals, one with a 50% chance of surviving but extremely efficient, and the other very inefficient, with a 90% survival rate.... they are all going for the inefficient hospital. Every single one of them. Guarantee it.

So I would even make the clear case that even their category of "Level of Health" is only loosely connected to the quality of the care.

Regardless, at the very best.... the most generous I can be with the WHO report, only 1/5th of the entire report, even related to the quality of health care services, and that is dubious at best.

So when you judge national health care systems, based on every metric, but the one that counts.... survival rates.... then yes, the US fair poorly when you don't care about the quality of the care.
And not a god damned word of that screed proves that people do not suffer and die when they do not have access to health care, and for most people that means health care insurance
The US has higher 5-year survival rates, than any other country in the world.

5-Year survival rates, include everyone. Meaning.... Everyone.

5-Year survival rates, do not exclude people who don't have health insurance. You don't have insurance, and have cancer, and show up at the ER, and they start you on Chemo. If you die, that still counts towards 5-year survival rates.

Our survival rates are higher than anywhere else in the world. Period.

That means even if you are utterly poor, and have no insurance.... you still have a better chance of surviving an illness in the US, than you do anywhere else.

Why The US Has Better Cancer Survival Rates Than The Rest Of The World

To this day... we still lead the world in survival rates, for EVERYONE... not just the wealthy.
More of your dishonest horseshit

No Insurance. No Cancer Treatment.
 

lennypartiv

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 16, 2019
Messages
5,830
Reaction score
1,947
Points
210
And not a god damned word of that screed proves that people do not suffer and die when they do not have access to health care, and for most people that means health care insurance
Well there is a solution. if they want health insurance they can get a job.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,451
Reaction score
2,228
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
And not a god damned word of that screed proves that people do not suffer and die when they do not have access to health care, and for most people that means health care insurance
Well there is a solution. if they want health insurance they can get a job.
Really? All employers offer health care? All people who do not have health insurance are unemployed? What exactly are you jabbering about ?
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
18,155
Reaction score
3,870
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
They measured health care systems, based on everything EXCEPT... health care outcomes.
False. The WHO report to which I refer measures efficiency, and is completely dependent on outcomes.

Screen Shot 2019-09-15 at 8.54.43 PM.png


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAUegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1fI0cD1zr2EKAxVWMDp7c_

But I can see that you googled for a Forbes opinion piece and plagiarized it. Hey bro, we all have google.
This is actually the exact report I was referring to.

So this is from your link, and right off the bat, we can see that the quality of health care given, is not the primary focus.

View attachment 279472

So just look at the information from your own link.

They have 5 total categories that are being evaluated.

Level of Health.
Equity of Health.
level of Responsiveness.
Equity of Responsiveness.
Fairness in Financing.

So right off the bat, you can see very clearly that 3 out of 5 categories have nothing to do with the ability of the health care system to identify an illness, treat the illness, and heal the patient.

Fairness in Financing, equality of responsiveness and equality of health, have nothing to do with the quality of the care. It's simply measuring how socialized the system is.

By that logic, Cuba would score pretty high, because Cuba has equal care... equally crap care... but equal care. They might not have Aspirin, but then.... no one does, so therefore it's equal, and equal is good. No rich person is able to get Aspirin when the poor cannot. Rich people are all equally told they can't get Aspirin, and the financing for the aspirin is equally shared by everyone.

Compared to the US, where rich can get more aspirin, they can pay for faster delivery of aspirin, and the financing is unequally levied to those who want aspirin. Of course everyone is able to get aspirin, but that's not good, because it's still not equal when the rich can get more.

Thus Cuba will score higher on three out of five categories, even while people in Cuba often can't find any medications at all.

That leaves level of responsiveness and level of health.

So do either of those two categories actually look at the quality of the care?

Level of responsiveness. So your link, only referenced another report, again by the WHO, which again I've already read, but here it is anyway:
https://www.who.int/responsiveness/papers/paper21.pdf

So starting on Page 5, you can see a clear outline of how they determined "level of responsiveness".
They sent out an opinion survey, which gave patients a chance to give subjective answers.
The survey had questions regarding the following topics of Dignity, Autonomy, Quality of Amenities, Confidentiality, Prompt Attention, and overall.

Again... nearly all of these are subjective, not empirical.

For example, Dignity is subjective. It's not something that can be impartially measured. Two people can be treated exactly the same, and one claim it was horrific, and the other think it was great treatment.

Regardless, it's not a measure of the quality of care. The care could be the best care in the world, and the person say they were not treated with dignity.

Quality of Amenities. Again subjective. One person can be ecstatic they have a ceiling fan to keep them cool, while another can be ticked off they don't have wifi and cable TV to watch.

Regardless, it still does not measure the quality of the actual care. If I die from my illness, the fact they had HBO and STARZ in all the rooms, doesn't matter much.

The only thing in this category that actually relates to quality of care, is response time. Unfortunately, even there, some of the questions were worded poorly, and were subjective. For example, they asked was the wait time to see a doctor reasonable? Well reasonable is subjective. Most Americans would be shocked by the 3 month long wait in Canada to see a doctor. But in Canada, that is considered "reasonable". In the UK, if people wait a month to see a doctor, and that is considered 'reasonable'.

FYI, I'm not making this up. Steven Crowder interviewed a patient who waited 6 months for knee surgery in Canada. When he pointed out that in the US, the wait time was under a week, the Canadian patient said he was lying, because all appointments are months long. Again, to her (the patient in Canada) waiting months on months was normal.

So if people in the US wait a week, and think that is unreasonable, and people in Canada wait a month and think that is very reasonable, we would look bad in comparison, while having the better quality of care.

So that leaves just Level of Health.

Level of health, spans many things, and not all of which are connected to the quality of care.
That's why they say level of health, and not level of care. Level of care would imply looking at the actual quality of care. Level of health, can mean many things.

For example life expectancy. Life expectancy is affected by many things that the health care sector has no control over. Such as auto fatalities. So unless you expect doctors to run out on the highway, and stop people from crashing... then that is a large affect on life expectancy, that has nothing to do with health care. Equally, homicides, have nothing to do with health care.

Then you have efficiency, which you mentioned before.

I'm not even sure what the point of that is. Does it matter how 'efficient the system is, if you die?

Really? If you die, when you could have lived.... does it matter if they let you die very efficiently?

Would not the better measurement be, survival rates? The rate at which the health care system diagnoses, treats, and heals patients? Would not that be the defacto standard of the quality of care, rather than how efficiently it does it?

Because I can say for certain, that would matter more to me. If I end up in a grave, I'm not sure I'd care much about how efficiently the system got me into a grave. Living, and surviving, would be a far more important to any patient.

I guarantee that if you have a person offered the option of going to two different hospitals, one with a 50% chance of surviving but extremely efficient, and the other very inefficient, with a 90% survival rate.... they are all going for the inefficient hospital. Every single one of them. Guarantee it.

So I would even make the clear case that even their category of "Level of Health" is only loosely connected to the quality of the care.

Regardless, at the very best.... the most generous I can be with the WHO report, only 1/5th of the entire report, even related to the quality of health care services, and that is dubious at best.

So when you judge national health care systems, based on every metric, but the one that counts.... survival rates.... then yes, the US fair poorly when you don't care about the quality of the care.
And not a god damned word of that screed proves that people do not suffer and die when they do not have access to health care, and for most people that means health care insurance
The US has higher 5-year survival rates, than any other country in the world.

5-Year survival rates, include everyone. Meaning.... Everyone.

5-Year survival rates, do not exclude people who don't have health insurance. You don't have insurance, and have cancer, and show up at the ER, and they start you on Chemo. If you die, that still counts towards 5-year survival rates.

Our survival rates are higher than anywhere else in the world. Period.

That means even if you are utterly poor, and have no insurance.... you still have a better chance of surviving an illness in the US, than you do anywhere else.

Why The US Has Better Cancer Survival Rates Than The Rest Of The World

To this day... we still lead the world in survival rates, for EVERYONE... not just the wealthy.
More of your dishonest horseshit

No Insurance. No Cancer Treatment.
No, I don't believe it. I've been to the hospital myself with no money, and no insurance. I got treated. I know others that have.

And if you ask doctors who work at hospitals, they say the same.

https://www.quora.com/If-someone-wi...eatment-will-he-she-receive-from-the-hospital

If we see a patient without insurance (or medicare or medicaid) in our hospital, we initiate treatment as indicated and our social worker works with the patient and their family to apply for medicaid if they qualify and if they don't already have it.​

So no, I don't believe it. I think that article was more fake news my left wingers. I do. You guys lie too much. This is just the Jessie Smollett of Health Care hoaxes.

I'll trust a doctor that has actually worked in a hospital over this weird "curetoday" blog? By who?

And I like how she says "Well I have never had a problem.... but....." And then some unidentified friend, with a story we can't verify, saying she was holding off on treatment for 20 days?

No. I don't buy it. Sorry. The fact you can't even find even a biased left-wing source like CNN for this story, but instead have the completely unverified 'friend I know' story, shows me I was right.
 

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
61,036
Reaction score
17,288
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
You're just a negative and miserable person if you don't love that you've been blessed with the chance to thrive in a country with so much opportunity. This country is amazing. Stop blaming it for your anger and ineptness. You need to sort that shit out in therapy.
Who exactly are you addressing here? Perhaps the Iowa farmers who are going bankrupt because they can no longer sell their soy beans to China? Is it the millions of people who don't have access to health care? Is it the survivors of mass shootings with weapons of war that were obtained legally? Please tell us how all of that is their fault.
Virginia soy bean growers around us are making a lot this year.
 

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
61,036
Reaction score
17,288
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
Our survival rates are higher than anywhere else in the world.
And our infant mortality rate is 60%+ higher than the average among first world countries, while our life expectancy ranks near the bottom and is far below the average.
Bullshit statistic. Name a nation with a better infant mortality rate and look how they don’t count infants who’ve died before birth.
 

Andylusion

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
18,155
Reaction score
3,870
Points
290
Location
Central Ohio
Our survival rates are higher than anywhere else in the world.
And our infant mortality rate is 60%+ higher than the average among first world countries, while our life expectancy ranks near the bottom and is far below the average.
So we already talked about life expectancy. Unless you suggest that doctors run out and stop homicides and auto fatalities..... citing life expectancy is a strawman. Life expectancy has nothing to do with the quality of the care.

As for infant morality, big problems with that. Most of the infant moralities come from premature births.

Other countries simply do not even count those births, as having happened. If a baby is born too early in the UK and it dies.... they don't even count that as a birth, or an infant death.

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

So yes, if you don't count babies that die... shockingly your infant deaths will be lower than the US, where every single birth is counted.

This Premature Baby’s Life Was Saved When Doctors Found a Pair of Scissors

Tiny Maddalena Douse weighed just 13 ounces at birth. Lucky for her, doctors did not know that, because a pair of scissors accidentally left on the scale bumped her weight reading up to 1 pound. One pound is the minimum weight at which physicians in the UK will generally intervene to provide life-saving care to infants born extremely premature.​

Let me help you out there....

In the UK, if the baby is under a pound.... they just flat out let it die.

This couple has a living baby today, only because the doctors accidentally left a pair of scissors on the scale, and thus saved it's life. Socialized medicine at it's best. Where you hope for accidents in order to live.

Again.... my point is, in other countries.... babies like this which have a high chance of dying, are not even counted.

If you don't count the deaths.... shockingly.... you have fewer of them to report. That's why our system has more infant mortality, because we count all births... not just the ones we deem worth counting.
 

TheProgressivePatriot

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2015
Messages
15,451
Reaction score
2,228
Points
290
Location
The commie infested, queer loving liberal NE USA
False. The WHO report to which I refer measures efficiency, and is completely dependent on outcomes.

View attachment 279495

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAUegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw1fI0cD1zr2EKAxVWMDp7c_

But I can see that you googled for a Forbes opinion piece and plagiarized it. Hey bro, we all have google.
This is actually the exact report I was referring to.

So this is from your link, and right off the bat, we can see that the quality of health care given, is not the primary focus.

View attachment 279472

So just look at the information from your own link.

They have 5 total categories that are being evaluated.

Level of Health.
Equity of Health.
level of Responsiveness.
Equity of Responsiveness.
Fairness in Financing.

So right off the bat, you can see very clearly that 3 out of 5 categories have nothing to do with the ability of the health care system to identify an illness, treat the illness, and heal the patient.

Fairness in Financing, equality of responsiveness and equality of health, have nothing to do with the quality of the care. It's simply measuring how socialized the system is.

By that logic, Cuba would score pretty high, because Cuba has equal care... equally crap care... but equal care. They might not have Aspirin, but then.... no one does, so therefore it's equal, and equal is good. No rich person is able to get Aspirin when the poor cannot. Rich people are all equally told they can't get Aspirin, and the financing for the aspirin is equally shared by everyone.

Compared to the US, where rich can get more aspirin, they can pay for faster delivery of aspirin, and the financing is unequally levied to those who want aspirin. Of course everyone is able to get aspirin, but that's not good, because it's still not equal when the rich can get more.

Thus Cuba will score higher on three out of five categories, even while people in Cuba often can't find any medications at all.

That leaves level of responsiveness and level of health.

So do either of those two categories actually look at the quality of the care?

Level of responsiveness. So your link, only referenced another report, again by the WHO, which again I've already read, but here it is anyway:
https://www.who.int/responsiveness/papers/paper21.pdf

So starting on Page 5, you can see a clear outline of how they determined "level of responsiveness".
They sent out an opinion survey, which gave patients a chance to give subjective answers.
The survey had questions regarding the following topics of Dignity, Autonomy, Quality of Amenities, Confidentiality, Prompt Attention, and overall.

Again... nearly all of these are subjective, not empirical.

For example, Dignity is subjective. It's not something that can be impartially measured. Two people can be treated exactly the same, and one claim it was horrific, and the other think it was great treatment.

Regardless, it's not a measure of the quality of care. The care could be the best care in the world, and the person say they were not treated with dignity.

Quality of Amenities. Again subjective. One person can be ecstatic they have a ceiling fan to keep them cool, while another can be ticked off they don't have wifi and cable TV to watch.

Regardless, it still does not measure the quality of the actual care. If I die from my illness, the fact they had HBO and STARZ in all the rooms, doesn't matter much.

The only thing in this category that actually relates to quality of care, is response time. Unfortunately, even there, some of the questions were worded poorly, and were subjective. For example, they asked was the wait time to see a doctor reasonable? Well reasonable is subjective. Most Americans would be shocked by the 3 month long wait in Canada to see a doctor. But in Canada, that is considered "reasonable". In the UK, if people wait a month to see a doctor, and that is considered 'reasonable'.

FYI, I'm not making this up. Steven Crowder interviewed a patient who waited 6 months for knee surgery in Canada. When he pointed out that in the US, the wait time was under a week, the Canadian patient said he was lying, because all appointments are months long. Again, to her (the patient in Canada) waiting months on months was normal.

So if people in the US wait a week, and think that is unreasonable, and people in Canada wait a month and think that is very reasonable, we would look bad in comparison, while having the better quality of care.

So that leaves just Level of Health.

Level of health, spans many things, and not all of which are connected to the quality of care.
That's why they say level of health, and not level of care. Level of care would imply looking at the actual quality of care. Level of health, can mean many things.

For example life expectancy. Life expectancy is affected by many things that the health care sector has no control over. Such as auto fatalities. So unless you expect doctors to run out on the highway, and stop people from crashing... then that is a large affect on life expectancy, that has nothing to do with health care. Equally, homicides, have nothing to do with health care.

Then you have efficiency, which you mentioned before.

I'm not even sure what the point of that is. Does it matter how 'efficient the system is, if you die?

Really? If you die, when you could have lived.... does it matter if they let you die very efficiently?

Would not the better measurement be, survival rates? The rate at which the health care system diagnoses, treats, and heals patients? Would not that be the defacto standard of the quality of care, rather than how efficiently it does it?

Because I can say for certain, that would matter more to me. If I end up in a grave, I'm not sure I'd care much about how efficiently the system got me into a grave. Living, and surviving, would be a far more important to any patient.

I guarantee that if you have a person offered the option of going to two different hospitals, one with a 50% chance of surviving but extremely efficient, and the other very inefficient, with a 90% survival rate.... they are all going for the inefficient hospital. Every single one of them. Guarantee it.

So I would even make the clear case that even their category of "Level of Health" is only loosely connected to the quality of the care.

Regardless, at the very best.... the most generous I can be with the WHO report, only 1/5th of the entire report, even related to the quality of health care services, and that is dubious at best.

So when you judge national health care systems, based on every metric, but the one that counts.... survival rates.... then yes, the US fair poorly when you don't care about the quality of the care.
And not a god damned word of that screed proves that people do not suffer and die when they do not have access to health care, and for most people that means health care insurance
The US has higher 5-year survival rates, than any other country in the world.

5-Year survival rates, include everyone. Meaning.... Everyone.

5-Year survival rates, do not exclude people who don't have health insurance. You don't have insurance, and have cancer, and show up at the ER, and they start you on Chemo. If you die, that still counts towards 5-year survival rates.

Our survival rates are higher than anywhere else in the world. Period.

That means even if you are utterly poor, and have no insurance.... you still have a better chance of surviving an illness in the US, than you do anywhere else.

Why The US Has Better Cancer Survival Rates Than The Rest Of The World

To this day... we still lead the world in survival rates, for EVERYONE... not just the wealthy.
More of your dishonest horseshit

No Insurance. No Cancer Treatment.
No, I don't believe it. I've been to the hospital myself with no money, and no insurance. I got treated. I know others that have.

And if you ask doctors who work at hospitals, they say the same.

https://www.quora.com/If-someone-wi...eatment-will-he-she-receive-from-the-hospital

If we see a patient without insurance (or medicare or medicaid) in our hospital, we initiate treatment as indicated and our social worker works with the patient and their family to apply for medicaid if they qualify and if they don't already have it.​

So no, I don't believe it. I think that article was more fake news my left wingers. I do. You guys lie too much. This is just the Jessie Smollett of Health Care hoaxes.

I'll trust a doctor that has actually worked in a hospital over this weird "curetoday" blog? By who?

And I like how she says "Well I have never had a problem.... but....." And then some unidentified friend, with a story we can't verify, saying she was holding off on treatment for 20 days?

No. I don't buy it. Sorry. The fact you can't even find even a biased left-wing source like CNN for this story, but instead have the completely unverified 'friend I know' story, shows me I was right
From your own link slick
Physicians, likewise, provide care for those who cannot pay , but obviously there is a limit to how much time you can devote to the uninsured.[/QUOTE]

If we see a patient without insurance (or medicare or medicaid) in our hospital, we initiate treatment as indicated and our social worker works with the patient and their family to apply for medicaid if they qualify and if they don't already have it. It usually takes 3 - 6 months for this to be approved,
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top