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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Name a nation with a better infant mortality rate and look how they don’t count infants who’ve died before birth.

Nah,I'm not your mommy. I'm not going to play with your imaginary friend with you.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The only time I’ve been unhappy with this country is back in the late ‘60s when I was facing the draft.

You should have put on a sweater.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

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,

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

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,

[/QUOTE]





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Andylusion]

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.

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,

And you keep reading........

medicaid let's you bill retroactively for some period of time prior to the approval

And you missed it...... they were still getting treatment. I got treatment, and then they sent me a bill. And then I paid the bill.

So they were still being treated, even before Medicaid kicked in.

 

[Soupnazi630]

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.

I think youre missing the point, which is a broad one and not specific.

Nobody would say that some folks are not less fortunate in their circumstances. Thats completely ridiculous that you gleaned that from the OP, which is a commentary on the broader picture that our wealth, resources and violence per capita are all in historically good places. Per capita. By percent of the whole.

I'm not missing the point at all. The OP is blaming the victims of inequality. He is denying that- but he most certainly is. Percentages do matter to those who are shut out.

There are no such victims

No one has ever demonstrated any evidence that inequity or inequality of wealth causes harm

There fore there are no victims to blame and you are parroting myth

 

[Weatherman2020]

Name a nation with a better infant mortality rate and look how they don’t count infants who’ve died before birth.

Nah,I'm not your mommy. I'm not going to play with your imaginary friend with you.

We know you’re happy to spew lies.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Most of that infant mortality occurs because of poor and uneducated mothers, unable or unwilling to care for their children.

 

[ptbw forever]

Haha...I’m in touch with reality and not afraid to confront it

You can confront the realities of life without being fueled by hatred.

Not anymore.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Most of that infant mortality occurs because of poor and uneducated mothers, unable or unwilling to care for their children.

And much of that stems from poor access to healthcare. Other first world countries have poor people and uneducated people, too.

But i do take your point that we have to improve education.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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.

Most of that infant mortality occurs because of poor and uneducated mothers, unable or unwilling to care for their children.

It’s pretty easy to have a higher infant mortality rate when people give birth without a doctor nearby and you don’t count babies who die.

From WHO:

“it has also been common practice in several countries (e.g. Belgium, France, Spain) to register as live births only those infants who survived for a specified period beyond birth”; those who did not survive were “completely ignored for registration purposes.”

WHO | Long-term trends in fetal mortality: implications for developing countries

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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.

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,

And you keep reading........

medicaid let's you bill retroactively for some period of time prior to the approval

And you missed it...... they were still getting treatment. I got treatment, and then they sent me a bill. And then I paid the bill.

So they were still being treated, even before Medicaid kicked in.

If you qualify! Many uninsured fall between the cracks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Zorro!]

CUE THE HOWLS OF OUTRAGE FROM THE SAME PEOPLE WHO CREATED THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE: Administration Proposes to Deny Visas to Those Without Health Insurance.

 

[whitehall]

You can be unhappy if you want in the greatest Country in the world. The mental issue comes in when you think you are unhappy because you live in the greatest Country in the world.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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.

You're so right!

Isn't i amazing how many jerks hate the government and hate paying taxes - they basically hate America!

If they had a brain they'd be thrilled to pay taxes and help support the government that has been the guarantor of their freedoms!

 

[lennypartiv]

America, love it or leave it.