We’re number 37! USA USA USA!!

[rightwinger]

Preventable Deaths by Country

Preventable Deaths for selected countries, 1997-1998 and 2002-2003, issued 2008

Yahoo! US is #14

 

[CMike]

An Ill-Conceived Health-Care Ranking - WSJ.com

Among all the numbers bandied about in the health-care debate, this ranking stands out as particularly misleading. It is based on a report released nearly a decade ago by the World Health Organization and relies on statistics that are even older and incomplete.

Few people who cite the ranking are aware that some public-health officials were skeptical of the report from the outset. The ranking was faulted because it judges health-care systems for problems -- cultural, behavioral, economic -- that aren't controlled by health care.

"It's a very notorious ranking," says Mark Pearson, head of health for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the 30-member, Paris-based organization of the world's largest economies. "Health analysts don't like to talk about it in polite company. It's one of those things that we wish would go away."

...Prof. Murray, now director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, says that "the biggest problem was just data" -- or the lack thereof, in many cases. He says the rankings are now "very old," and acknowledges they contained a lot of uncertainty. His institute is seeking to produce its own rankings in the next three years. The data limitations hampering earlier work "are why groups like ours are so focused on trying to get rankings better."

A WHO spokesman says the organization has no plans to update the rankings, and adds, "We would not consider it current."

And yet many people apparently do. The 37th place ranking is often cited in today's overhaul debate, even though, in some ways, the U.S. actually ranked a lot higher. Specifically, it placed 15th overall, based on its performance in the five criteria. But for the most widely publicized form of its rankings, the WHO took the additional step of adjusting for national health expenditures per capita, to calculate each country's health-care bang for its bucks. Because the U.S. ranked first in spending, that adjustment pushed its ranking down to 37th. Dominica, Costa Rica and Morocco ranked 42nd, 45th and 94th before adjusting for spending levels, compared to the U.S.'s No. 15 ranking. After adjustment, all three countries ranked higher than the U.S.



The study is both flawed and dated, but that does not necessarily mean that we are doing better on health care than the study indicates.

”
— David Beemer More recent efforts to rank national health systems have been inconclusive. On measures such as child mortality and life expectancy, the U.S. has slipped since the 2000 rankings. But some researchers say that factors beyond the control of the health-care system are to blame, such as dietary habits. Studies that have attempted to exclude these factors from the equation don't agree on whether the U.S. system looks better or worse.

The WHO ranking was ambitious in its scope, grading each nation's health care on five factors. Two of these were relatively uncontroversial: health level, which is roughly the average healthy lifespan of a nation's residents; and responsiveness, which is a sort of customer-service rating encompassing factors such as the system's speed, choice and quality of amenities. The other three measure inequality in health-care outcomes; responsiveness; and individual spending.

These last three measures struck some analysts as problematic, because a country with unhealthy people could rank above a healthier one where there was a bigger gap between healthy and unhealthy people. It is certainly possible that spreading health care as evenly as possible makes a society healthier, but the rankings struck some health-care researchers as assuming that, rather than demonstrating it.

An even bigger problem was shared by all five of these factors: The underlying data about each nation generally weren't available. So WHO researchers calculated the relationship between those factors and other, available numbers, such as literacy rates and income inequality. Such measures, they argued, were linked closely to health in those countries where fuller health data were available. Even though there was no way to be sure that link held in other countries, they used these literacy and income data to estimate health performance.

Philip Musgrove, the editor-in-chief of the WHO report that accompanied the rankings, calls the figures that resulted from this step "so many made-up numbers," and the result a "nonsense ranking." Dr. Musgrove, an economist who is now deputy editor of the journal Health Affairs, says he was hired to edit the report's text but didn't fully understand the methodology until after the report was released. After he left the WHO, he wrote an article in 2003 for the medical journal Lancet criticizing the rankings as "meaningless."

...Prof. Murray, now director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, says that "the biggest problem was just data" -- or the lack thereof, in many cases. He says the rankings are now "very old," and acknowledges they contained a lot of uncertainty. His institute is seeking to produce its own rankings in the next three years. The data limitations hampering earlier work "are why groups like ours are so focused on trying to get rankings better."

A WHO spokesman says the organization has no plans to update the rankings, and adds, "We would not consider it current."


And yet many people apparently do. The 37th place ranking is often cited in today's overhaul debate, even though, in some ways, the U.S. actually ranked a lot higher. Specifically, it placed 15th overall, based on its performance in the five criteria. But for the most widely publicized form of its rankings, the WHO took the additional step of adjusting for national health expenditures per capita, to calculate each country's health-care bang for its bucks. Because the U.S. ranked first in spending, that adjustment pushed its ranking down to 37th. Dominica, Costa Rica and Morocco ranked 42nd, 45th and 94th before adjusting for spending levels, compared to the U.S.'s No. 15 ranking. After adjustment, all three countries ranked higher than the U.S.

 

[CMike]

I answered my own question, since none of the liberals could answer it.

It's a flawed study based on outdated information that skewered the data.

 

[rightwinger]

Total Expendetures on Healthcare as a Percent of GDP

Total Health Expenditures as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 2000-2005 - Country Rankings

Yahoo! USA is number 2! with 15.2%

Wait a minute...thats not a good thing

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Anybody can go into a Wal-Mart Health Clinic and for $65 they can get a wellness checkup. The prescription will only cost them $4 in many cases.

Hey Iowa Guy - what the **** is a Wal Mart Health Clinic

Look it up potty mouth.

 

[WillowTree]

Now Willow, don't you be askin' questions these folks can't answer.

Lets see...its been asked and answered repeatedly. But since the conservatives don't like the answer, lets answer it again.

Yes ...Rush Limbaugh can receive the best hospital care in the world when he is sick. The problem is availability and affordability of healthcare. 60% of bankruptcies in the US are due to healthcare costs. Americans put off preventative checkups because they can't afford the copays or must pay out of pocket. The poor use emergency rooms because that is what is covered.
The end result is ...USA is #37

they're either disingenuous or intentionally obtuse. which do you think it is?

He talked about Rush Limbaugh. I asked about the canadian dude. and you call me obtuse?? why did the canadian dude race to shithole number 37 to have heart surgery if the care is so much better under national health care??? why????

 

[rightwinger]

Lets see...its been asked and answered repeatedly. But since the conservatives don't like the answer, lets answer it again.

Yes ...Rush Limbaugh can receive the best hospital care in the world when he is sick. The problem is availability and affordability of healthcare. 60% of bankruptcies in the US are due to healthcare costs. Americans put off preventative checkups because they can't afford the copays or must pay out of pocket. The poor use emergency rooms because that is what is covered.
The end result is ...USA is #37

they're either disingenuous or intentionally obtuse. which do you think it is?

He talked about Rush Limbaugh. I asked about the canadian dude. and you call me obtuse?? why did the canadian dude race to shithole number 37 to have heart surgery if the care is so much better under national health care??? why????

The same reason Rush Limbaugh did....because they can ******* afford it

 

[WillowTree]

they're either disingenuous or intentionally obtuse. which do you think it is?

He talked about Rush Limbaugh. I asked about the canadian dude. and you call me obtuse?? why did the canadian dude race to shithole number 37 to have heart surgery if the care is so much better under national health care??? why????

The same reason Rush Limbaugh did....because they can ******* afford it

so there is something wrong with National Health care in Canada??? Could he afford it in Canada???? Wellcouldhehuh? Evasion is not gonna win yer argument.. whodoyathinkyerfooling?

 

[WillowTree]

If 30 million Canadians have to wait wait wait wait wait wait wait and wait for health care whatdoyathink is gonna happen to 350 million Americans and half of Mexico??

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Why in the world do you Progressives think European Health Care socialism is what the United States should strive for? Those countries are going broke or don't have the money for anything but their health care. If you were comparing the US to the world on the basis of "equality of outcome" and we were found to be in last place, I would have no problem with that. What is important is how we rank when it comes to equality of opportunity. In that we rank 1st with no peer.

 

[WillowTree]

they're either disingenuous or intentionally obtuse. which do you think it is?

He talked about Rush Limbaugh. I asked about the canadian dude. and you call me obtuse?? why did the canadian dude race to shithole number 37 to have heart surgery if the care is so much better under national health care??? why????

The same reason Rush Limbaugh did....because they can ******* afford it

why would anyone want to afford shithole number 37.. Aren't his chances of dying 36 times more likely?

 

[Diuretic]

If 30 million Canadians have to wait wait wait wait wait wait wait and wait for health care whatdoyathink is gonna happen to 350 million Americans and half of Mexico??

How many doctors have you got? That might help work it out.

 

[WillowTree]

If 30 million Canadians have to wait wait wait wait wait wait wait and wait for health care whatdoyathink is gonna happen to 350 million Americans and half of Mexico??

How many doctors have you got? That might help work it out.

how many doctors do I got? what'sthatgotodowithit?

 

[potter 58]

yea willow and just think , we spend double per capita than any other industrial nation to be the # 37th ranked shithole, now that's getting some real bang for your buck, what do ya think

 

[Diuretic]

If 30 million Canadians have to wait wait wait wait wait wait wait and wait for health care whatdoyathink is gonna happen to 350 million Americans and half of Mexico??

How many doctors have you got? That might help work it out.

how many doctors do I got? what'sthatgotodowithit?

Waiting times.

 

[WillowTree]

How many doctors have you got? That might help work it out.

how many doctors do I got? what'sthatgotodowithit?

Waiting times.

would you post some waiting times stats in National Health Care countries.? Preferably one that has 350 million residents and half of the population of Mexico in illegal residence. Let's compare apples to apples.. Find me a country like that.

 

[potter 58]

half of the population of Mexico in illegal residence.

hey willow, why lie when you don't have too, to you think it makes your point more valid LOL

 

[WillowTree]

half of the population of Mexico in illegal residence.

hey willow, why lie when you don't have too, to you think it makes your point more valid LOL

well then enlighten us,, what percentage of the population of Mexico resides in the US of KKKA illegally? doyathink?

 

[rightwinger]

Why in the world do you Progressives think European Health Care socialism is what the United States should strive for? Those countries are going broke or don't have the money for anything but their health care. If you were comparing the US to the world on the basis of "equality of outcome" and we were found to be in last place, I would have no problem with that. What is important is how we rank when it comes to equality of opportunity. In that we rank 1st with no peer.

Well if they are going broke from their healthcare, how is it that they pay a significantly lower percentage of their GDP for healthcare?

It is the USA that is going broke from healthcare costs

 

[rightwinger]

half of the population of Mexico in illegal residence.

hey willow, why lie when you don't have too, to you think it makes your point more valid LOL

well then enlighten us,, what percentage of the population of Mexico resides in the US of KKKA illegally? doyathink?

Starting point ...Mexico has 100 million people