Something that bugged me real bad last night

[strollingbones]

here is the concept i am fighting: we are the best...we have the best....its just an assumption based on what people want....that allows people to hide from the reality of the situation, doesnt it? instead of seeking change to make this country the best..they just parrot the party line..that we are already the best....

 

[Annie]

here is the concept i am fighting: we are the best...we have the best....its just an assumption based on what people want....that allows people to hide from the reality of the situation, doesnt it? instead of seeking change to make this country the best..they just parrot the party line..that we are already the best....

I'm not so much 'a we are best' type of person. I'm also not a knee jerk that 'we are in need of atoning for all our wrongs', as Obama seems to be.

In any case, my point was that before one tosses another huge chunk of the US economy into the government abyss, it behooves one to know what is going on. We elect our representatives to understand what they are voting on in Congress. We provide the money to pay for their staff to give them the ability to gather the information contained within said bills. That so many of these jackasses don't bother to have the basics down and vote strait party or on pork, is a disgrace.

Most of us have little time to read more than the lead paragraphs or skim articles that are supposed to explain what the hell the headlines are about. The media and the spinners from both parties, work ceaselessly to create those headlines. When it's something as serious as that WHO ranking, with that "37" number being interpreted as the level of care delivered, that's wrong. Now it may be better or it may be worse in the US, but that's NOT what was measured.

It reminds me of the Lancet study with parameters of near zero to a million dead in the first year of the war. Until some folks started reading the footnotes, the CW was that the number was towards the million. The criteria sucked, the parameters sucked, it was nonsense.

Another example is 'Climate Change.' Until they fix the models it will never be good science, but as long as they can keep some of the 'faithful' they will not fix the problems.

It's always the same, GIGO.

 

[strollingbones]

the who measurement was a fast find....you know that....unfortunately that is the problem...no one does objective assements....on either side.

 

[strollingbones]

you know an "indepth news" story refers to around a minute to minute and half air time.

 

[Old Rocks]

When Obama was up there bumping his gums as usual, all he talked about was our lousy health care system in the US. We have the best health care in the world and not once did he say anything about all the doctors, nurses and other medical folks and what a great job they do for us. I've seen nurses working double shifts till they were so tired they were about to drop and we have some of the best doctors anywhere and hospitals, etc. and not one time did he mention that. He was too busy talking about how bad it was. Yes, we need something to help fix our health care system but there are a lot of other ways to do it besides what Obama is pushing down our throats. All the illegals for one thing that we are taking care of and if the politicians would cut out all the "pork" like their pet projects that we don't need and start going through and checking on some of this insurance fraud and whatever there are lots of ways to fix the economy and figure this thing out about health care, but he is too busy trying to push his crap as fast as he can. Why not take more time and get it right?

In other words, do nothing at all. Or do the Republican thing and fix it so the leechs can make even more money off of peope that are sick. Our system bankrupts hundreds of thousands of American familys every year. The systems that Europe and the industrial Asian nations have bankrupts not one family.

 

[Old Rocks]

okay annie (nun one....) who do you think has the best medical care in the world? if it is the us....please provide something that proves that.....all i am saying...is we are not the best medical system in the world..does that make me less an american or more a realist? you cannot be a solution till you note the problem.

Not going there Bones, it's not the history teacher's place to rank countries regarding healthcare. However, if one is going to use WHO rankings to argue their preference for a health care plan that will cost trillions of dollars, change both our health care and economy, one better know what the hell they are using to measure and what they ARE measuring.

While I just teach a bit of sociology within middle school social studies, (demographics, statistics, etc.), I have a degree in the subject from University of Chicago, one of, if not the premier university for sociology. I do have a clue to research and following the subject matter being 'measured.' Once you have the criteria, it's not difficult.

OK. Simple criteria. Where do we rank in longevity? Infant mortality? Our seniors health? How about the economic health of those are sick?

 

[Annie]

the who measurement was a fast find....you know that....unfortunately that is the problem...no one does objective assements....on either side.

I found it without much problem. Within it are the criteria. Doesn't take much to check it out. However, most of the time one just should be real skeptical of 'studies'. I don't bother with doing this unless I start seeing the 'stat' being used a lot. This morning I had the minutes to take a look at the WHO study site.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that 'civics' means we should all have to track down all the questions on polls and/or studies, or even the 'givens' within a news article, if that becomes the standard we may as well get rid of the Republic and go total democracy-which wouldn't work. However, when people, (of either side), start using these as 'facts' on a consistent basis, I usually do track down where they came from.

I do think we should be demanding our representatives do what they are paid to do, what they campaigned to do, what they swore to do.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is by our own people

WASHINGTON -- Americans are living longer than ever, but not as long as people in 41 other countries.

For decades, the United States has been slipping in international rankings of life expectancy, as other countries improve health care, nutrition and lifestyles.



Graphic shows life expectancy by country;; three sizes; 1c x 2 5/8 inches; 46.5 mm x 66.7 mm; 1c x 3 5/8 inches; 46.5 mm x 92.1 mm; 3c x 3 inches; 146 mm x 76.2 mm (Damiko Morris - AP)



Countries that surpass the U.S. include Japan and most of Europe, as well as Jordan, Guam and the Cayman Islands.

"Something's wrong here when one of the richest countries in the world, the one that spends the most on health care, is not able to keep up with other countries," said Dr. Christopher Murray, head of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

A baby born in the United States in 2004 will live an average of 77.9 years. That life expectancy ranks 42nd, down from 11th two decades earlier, according to international numbers provided by the Census Bureau and domestic numbers from the National Center for Health Statistics.

US Slipping in Life Expectancy Rankings - washingtonpost.com

 

[Old Rocks]

In this nation being poor and the wrong color means that you have a substancial handicap in life's lottery from the git-go.

Infant mortality in the United States: trends, differentials, and projections, 1950 through 2010.


Abstract
OBJECTIVES. This study examined long-term trends and differences in infant mortality in the United States from 1950 through 1991 according to race and ethnicity, education, family income, and cause of death. Forecasts are made through the year 2010. METHODS. Log-linear regression models were applied to data from the National Vital Statistics System, National Linked Birth and Infant Death files, the National Maternal and Infant Health Survey, the National Natality Survey, and the National Infant Mortality Survey to model and forecast infant mortality. RESULTS. Dramatic declines in the US infant mortality rate have occurred in the past 4 decades, largely as a result of declines in mortality from pneumonia and influenza, respiratory distress syndrome, prematurity and low birthweight, congenital anomalies, and accidents. Despite the overall reductions, however, substantial racial/ethnic, educational, and income differences in infant mortality still exist. CONCLUSIONS. The long-term downward trend in US infant mortality has not benefited Blacks and Whites equally. The Black/White disparity in infant mortality has not only persisted but increased over time and is not expected to diminish in the near future. Educational inequalities have also widened, and racial disparities have generally increased across all educational levels.

 

[xotoxi]

...couldn't even treat me for chronic Tachycardia...

1) How fast?

2) Beta blockers or calcium channel blockers didn't work?

3) What are you taking now?

This is a picture of a professional who is truly concerned.

The rest of you collectivist do-gooders are poseurs.

Damn right!

I've been up all night on this thread clicking refresh every 3 minutes waiting for a reply.

Since he hasn't responded, I would have to assume that his tachycardia has converted into Vtach and then Vfib and now he is dead.

Oh well...

 

[Bfgrn]

When Obama was up there bumping his gums as usual, all he talked about was our lousy health care system in the US. We have the best health care in the world and not once did he say anything about all the doctors, nurses and other medical folks and what a great job they do for us. I've seen nurses working double shifts till they were so tired they were about to drop and we have some of the best doctors anywhere and hospitals, etc. and not one time did he mention that. He was too busy talking about how bad it was. Yes, we need something to help fix our health care system but there are a lot of other ways to do it besides what Obama is pushing down our throats. All the illegals for one thing that we are taking care of and if the politicians would cut out all the "pork" like their pet projects that we don't need and start going through and checking on some of this insurance fraud and whatever there are lots of ways to fix the economy and figure this thing out about health care, but he is too busy trying to push his crap as fast as he can. Why not take more time and get it right?

The Quality Question

No doubt one of the reasons that quality doesn’t make it into the health care discussions as readily as coverage or cost is because of this very satisfaction: if people are happy, then there’s no problem—so why pick a fight where there need not be conflict? Health care reform is already hard enough.

But quality is a problem. Just because Americans are happy with their care, doesn’t mean that they are getting the best care—or even recommended levels of care, as determined through medical consensus.

In 2003, Elizabeth McGlynn, the associate director of RAND’s health care program, led the first national, comprehensive study on the quality of care for adults. (Read that sentence again: we didn’t have a major nation-wide study on quality until just five years ago. The Institute of Medicine did focus on medical errors in its 1999 report, “To Err is Human"; but the RAND study looked at whether doctors were following “best practice.”) Quality has clearly been an overlooked issue in health care assessments.

Maggie has touched on McGlynn's study in a previous post, but it’s worth discussing again here. Using telephone interviews and two-year medical records, McGlynn’s team assessed whether or not 13,275 participants in 12 metropolitan regions received the level of care that doctors recommend for their specific ailments (25 conditions in all, including congestive heart failure, hypertension, breast cancer, diabetes, asthma, coronary artery disease, STDs, headaches, and alcohol dependence). What they found was that, on average, patients receive just 55 percent of recommended care for their conditions. (“Recommended care” was determined by (1) poring over national guidelines and medical literature to come up with key indicators and (2) subjecting these indicators to four nine-person, multi-specialty panels, who nixed or okayed the metrics).

This proportion was remarkably consistent across different kinds of care. The authors found “little difference among the proportion of recommended preventive care provided (54.9 percent), the proportion of recommended acute care provided (53.5 percent), and the proportion of recommended care provided for chronic conditions (56.1 percent).”

In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee last month, McGlynn nicely summed up the implications of these numbers: “we spend nearly $2 trillion annually on health care and we get it right about half the time.”


Health Beat: The Quality Question