SirPwn4lot
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2010
- Messages
- 523
- Reaction score
- 148
- Location
- Perth, Western Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I have only challenged people to offer any objective (or even subjective) evidence to the contrary. You can't...... Its a typical "head-in-the-sand" conservative response that cannot comprehend the US being 2nd rate on anything. However, until you can look yourself in the mirror and do an honest self-assessment and see you strengths and your shortcomings, you are 2nd rate. The US healthcare system, in terms of delivering quality healthcare to its citizens IS 2nd rate by any objective measure. It costs more than any other in the world and produces mediocre results.
I await a more sophisticated response than "the UN isn't credible", if you can.
I have only challenged people to offer any objective (or even subjective) evidence to the contrary. You can't...... Its a typical "head-in-the-sand" conservative response that cannot comprehend the US being 2nd rate on anything. However, until you can look yourself in the mirror and do an honest self-assessment and see you strengths and your shortcomings, you are 2nd rate. The US healthcare system, in terms of delivering quality healthcare to its citizens IS 2nd rate by any objective measure. It costs more than any other in the world and produces mediocre results.
View attachment 67113219
I await a more sophisticated response than "the UN isn't credible", if you can.
So what's wrong with the WHO and Commonwealth Fund studies? Let me count the ways.
The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem.
Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.
When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.
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
clearly the answer is to do what Obamacare did; and cut reimbursement rates by 27% so that neither specialists NOR general practicioners will accept medicaid, medicare, or tricare!
right?
The Doctor yesterday tried to discourage us from dental care said when my sons teeth get bad enough go to emergency room.
This is the government health care
What you did not have the cash for the dentist?
Maybe in Texas they didn't run run these issues, but here in Florida they sure did. Rick Scott knocked McCollum right out of the top spot by showing ads with him saying "We don't need a law like that here in Florida" (referring to Arizona's SB1070 immigration law). As for Islamization, it's a big issue in New York because of 9/11 and the Ground Zero Mosque (among other things).
Also, to say the Tea party isn't in agreement on these + gun control and the death penalty doesn't sound quite right. Upon whay do you base that ?
The Doctor yesterday tried to discourage us from dental care said when my sons teeth get bad enough go to emergency room.
This is the government health care
Yes I am paying the dentist for my 37 year old handicapped son. If I lived 30 miles south it would be covered. government funding and ways it is distibuted changes county to county
NO, this is a lack of government health care.
I feel for you and I hope the best. I think the dentist should be covered.
Which is what Obama care will give us.
Medicaid exists to give low-income families, especially low-income mothers and their children, access to health care. But for millions of Americans, Medicaid is an illusion. It is the appearance of coverage — without the power of access. The program is administered by states and funded jointly by states and the federal government. And it is bankrupting both, along with physicians and hospitals.
Last year, the federal government spent $251 billion on Medicaid. Washington’s Medicaid tab is expected to rise to $458 billion by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office. For state governments, most of which must balance their budgets annually, Medicaid’s escalating growth is ruinous. Responding to rising costs and budgetary pressures, 48 states were forced to adopt “at least one new policy” to restrict their ballooning Medicaid costs in 2010, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Twenty states adopted Medicaid benefit restrictions, and 14 signaled intent to cut benefits next year. Thirty-nine states imposed a provider rate cut or freeze this year, and 37 plan to do so in 2011 — despite the fact that Medicaid pays providers significantly less than any other insurer and frequently less than cost.
Consequently, patients suffer. In a March 15, 2010, article titled “As Medicaid Payments Shrink, Patients Are Abandoned,” The New York Times chronicled the experiences of several patients whose Medicaid coverage would not cover needed care. One was Carol Y. Vliet, who could not find a doctor to treat her metastatic cancer after Michigan imposed yet another round of Medicaid provider payment cuts. Vliet died seven days after the article appeared. Cases like Vliet’s are now all too common among Medicaid patients. A recent study of surgical outcomes found that patients are roughly as well off having Medicaid as they are having no health insurance, and “Medicaid payer status was associated with the longest length of stay and highest total costs” of any payer source.
All this is before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which would put 16 million more Americans on Medicaid. Once the new law is fully in effect, roughly one in five Americans will carry a Medicaid card. But the combination of rapid beneficiary growth with benefit and provider cuts threatens to render their cards useless.
A lack of government health care? You're funny. :lamo
:coffeepap
No sub standard health care like my son gets on Medicaid
Whihc is not full government care. You do understand this don't you? It is nothing like a univerisal paywer would be like. This is a system where one side fights to shut it down and another fights to keep it running. Not to mention, in this system, only the ill and most likely to need care are in the pool. This skews the numbers and limits the resources available, something a universial payer would help.
What this means is that you are looking in the wrong direction for the answer to this problem.
please tell me no one here is arguing that obamacare is a good thing, on any level
As I have from the begining, I argue it is a step forward and that is better than the status quo.
You have an odd view. But I disagree. We've gathered the information. This problem was just discovered with Obama. We've been collecting ideas and working on it for decades, but the fear mongers have had great success wiht the socialism scare. By using misinformation, they have held back reform for as long as i can remember. With this history, a step is better than standing still. I stand by that.
And after decades, we put together a bill that makes no sense that no one read. Then it passed.
Most bogus "government" we've ever endured.
Much of that has to do with dealing with the dishonest lies from people like Palin (lie of the year stuff) thatled us to make concessions and even adopt republican ideas (the mandate). That's what sometimes happens when congress decides not to solve a problem, but to use an issue to distort and influence votes. Shame on congress. Shame on people like Palin and Beck and Oberman.
And not even allowing Republicans to sit in on the meetings was nice, too.
Do you honestly believe republicans wanted to contribute? Go back and read their commets, hwo they were going to oppose no matter what. Look at how they changed on a dime and failed to support their own ideas. You really can't take their effort seriously.
You mean like the meeting Obama had with Republicans when he told McCain basically that I won, you need to get over it? That kind of compromise and free exchange of ideas? Please tell us all how a party that demonized the Bush tax cuts for years, claimed they were for the rich, not the middle class, can now reverse those comments claiming now that the tax cuts are good for the economy? Couldn't they have done that months or a year ago?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?