Rachel Maddow is happy

[MarcATL]

You do Stephanie...you do.

LOL!!

mummmmk
I care about her education as much as I care for her. None

Sure thing Steph...whatever you say.



LOL!!

 

[MarcATL]

It should be noted that the WHO rankings are weighted most heavily on "access". Because America does not have a nationalized healthcare system, it is penalized in the rankings.

The WHO ranking has much less to do with overal QUALITY of healthcare, which the United States is among the best in the world due to its competition-innovation based system.

That is why the world's wealthy so often come to America for medical treatment.

___

Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.

The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study

You just described America's WEALTHcare system.

Kudos!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Rachel seems to be real happy that the Democrats want to use reconciliation to ram a health bill on America. I find this very strange that she would support a national public option, after all she must have great health care at NBC (state run media) so why?
Maybe she wants tax payers to pay for her addadictome.

Rachel Maddow is an ugly dyke. Why would anyone want to listen to her?

For the same reason morons listen to Faux News..

What's funny is how many rightwankers around here brag about Foxnew's primetime program's ratings, but don't watch them.

 

[Sinatra]

It should be noted that the WHO rankings are weighted most heavily on "access". Because America does not have a nationalized healthcare system, it is penalized in the rankings.

The WHO ranking has much less to do with overal QUALITY of healthcare, which the United States is among the best in the world due to its competition-innovation based system.

That is why the world's wealthy so often come to America for medical treatment.

___

Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.

It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.

The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.

Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study

You just described America's WEALTHcare system.

Kudos!

Sorry - but your oft-repeated use of class warfare does not ring true in the debate of health care access for the vast majority of Americans...


Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.

For millions access to healthcare is not the issue - many choose not to pay, or are too dumb/lazy to bother signing up to already available in-state plans.

It is a much smaller percentage who are unable to obtain adequate coverage and who actually wish to do so. Far simpler measures could be utilized to solve such limited examples:

-Break the in-state health insurance monopoly that currently exists.

-Enhance the HSA program - including health vouchers.

-Initiate real tort reform


Those three simple things would greatly enhance overall access to quality health care coverage, as well as protect the motivating factors (profit) that are responsible for the innovations that save lives.

America offers the highest quality health care in the world.

Government-run healthcare would endanger that fact.

 

[Stephanie]

You do Stephanie...you do.

LOL!!

mummmmk
I care about her education as much as I care for her. None

Sure thing Steph...whatever you say.



LOL!!

 

[Modbert]

For whatever reason, some on the right really do hate that Rachel is educated.

Maybe it's because some of their three favorite heroes are all college dropouts (Rush, Hannity) or never went at all (Beck).

 

[Stephanie]

For whatever reason, some on the right really do hate that Rachel is educated.

Maybe it's because some of their three favorite heroes are all college dropouts (Rush, Hannity) or never went at all (Beck).

well of course being a college drop out makes someone less of a person and that people with a higher education are the only WORTHY ones.

 

[MarcATL]

For whatever reason, some on the right really do hate that Rachel is educated.

Maybe it's because some of their three favorite heroes are all college dropouts (Rush, Hannity) or never went at all (Beck).

The party of Dum Dums.

Larry, Curly and Moe ain't got NATHAN on dem jokaz!

 

[Modbert]

well of course being a college drop out makes someone less of a person and that people with a higher education are the only WORTHY ones.

Did I say that? Nope.

You did.

However, you are a elitist in the sense that you believe Rachel is worthless because of her education. Which is wrong on your part.

 

[Stephanie]

well of course being a college drop out makes someone less of a person and that people with a higher education are the only WORTHY ones.

Did I say that? Nope.

You did.

However, you are a elitist in the sense that you believe Rachel is worthless because of her education. Which is wrong on your part.

LOL, I never said any such thing, you are so full of shit

 

[☭proletarian☭]

For whatever reason, some on the right really do hate that Rachel is educated.

Maybe it's because some of their three favorite heroes are all college dropouts (Rush, Hannity) or never went at all (Beck).

The party of no higher education

'We dun knead no hire education- we gots a hire power'

 

[Stephanie]

For whatever reason, some on the right really do hate that Rachel is educated.

Maybe it's because some of their three favorite heroes are all college dropouts (Rush, Hannity) or never went at all (Beck).

The party of no higher education

'We dun knead no hire education- we gots a hire power'

yu no its.