~ Simply Brilliant Thinking!! ~

[Skittles]

Is this the best you can do Skittles ???? :isadizzy:

The methods used to obtain this "ranking" by the WHO back in 2000 were so widely criticised / debunked that the ranking is virtually worthless.......
Since then, the WHO no longer creates such rankings "because of the complexities of the task".

You conveniently left out the fact that WHO ranks the U.S. #1 of 191 countries for " responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient".

Isn't responsiveness what health care is all about ?????

The best I could do? It's a simple illustration that everything isn't hunky dory in the land of the free (at least, it is free if you can afford it).

I also don't entirely see how you think you are making the slightest point when you criticise my source of information, then quote directly from it....

Why would you want change? I imagine you have a solid insurance policy and receive the healthcare as required. What if you don't have medical insurance?

Once again, I absolutely revel in the irony of Americans boasting about their quality of spirit, the importance of community and respect for your fellow man etc, then opposing an innovation which aims to satisfy only the most basic rights for its own people. I'll leave this discussion here. American news networks can rave on all about how Steven Hawking would be dead if he had his care in the NHS (forgetting that he DID have care in the NHS, and to my trained eyes looks very much alive), or how we have death panels that decide on the worthiness of someone's life (a la Sarah Palin) but here in the rainy old UK we'll sit here giggling at the lies the American public is getting spoon-fed day after day.

I'll also sit here in the comfort that if I ever need help, I have millions of people to say 'Don't worry Skittles, we've got your back."

In America, thousands of people live in the fear that if they ever need help they will be confronted by a collossal bill.

 

[luckydog]

I was just pointing out your selective use of bad information.......

 

[Toastmaker]

Wow, I'm really surprised at how little some responders here know (Americans, that is) about the contents of Obama's and our Senate's socialized medicine plans for this country.

And no, Lionheart, working Americans generally don't see an obligation to take care of and pay for every "entitlement" that the "poor" seem to think they should receive !

 

[Trans_23]

Surprised this thread made it this long...

I see no problem with national health care as long as the government could fund it without raising taxes to say UK levels and if the could run it efficiently.

Two things, among many more, that would never happen.

 

[von Bek]

In UK if you pay tax you also pay for the NHS. If you want more healthcare you can buy what you need privately. Generally, that will mean a private room and getting to choose the date for your surgery.

I can only speak from my own experience. If you go private, your choice of doctors may be restricted by your policy conditions. For instance, when I needed surgery, the private healthcare insurance my job provides made me choose a less qualified surgeon because they wouldn't pay for the specialist who was treating me on the NHS. I went along with that as a trade off for choosing the date when I had the surgery.

Even basic NHS cover is more than most US Healthcare policies would provide. The cost of private medicine is about 1/3 of what it is for the equivalent in the US. Pre-existing conditions, no problem. No job, no problem. Public healthcare is about healthcare not money. Of course you can pay to jump the queue but you pays your money and you takes your choice.

In the US, healthcare is exempted from the anti-trust laws. Thats really what the current political spat is about. The best thing the government could do for healthcare in the US is repeal that anti-trust protection. That would bring prices down immediately.

 

[Bjoern]

In UK if you pay tax you also pay for the NHS. If you want more healthcare you can buy what you need privately. Generally, that will mean a private room and getting to choose the date for your surgery.

Something like that here too.

The only thing massively peeing me off is the obligation to pay 10€s if you want see a doctor (valid for a quarter year). While this might be good for keeping the hyperchondriacs out I find it rather hindering. Thus, I've limited my visits to the doc to the bare minimum. Dentist yes, but I've last seen an eye doctor or got a general check-up a few years ago. Not the right way but dang, it's effin' ten bucks!

 

[HouseHobbit]

I gress everyone has a opinion on this don't they..

I will say having a heath care system in America that is a well run as MOST Civilized Countries have for their people would be a Great Blessing.

Anything is better then Nothing, And in america you can all the health care you can afford, LIKE for Justice, You can have all you can afford also..

Ask the wealthy, and they don't have a problem.

But the Poor in america ARE suffering needlessly..

While the " Health Care System and Insurance PIGS" get Wickedly Rich.
Perhaps this within its self is a GREAT SIN we allow..

As A Christian. I believe ALL SHOULD BE CARED FOR To the Best ABILITY Of Society.
Period..

WE ARE OUR BROTHERS KEEPERS.

Like it or Not We all shall have to answer for our Own failings..

And Not Helping the Poor is something I have seen in The Bible
Is concedered a Great SIN..

WHEATHER OR NOT YOU SUPPORT THIS PERSON OR THAT
ALL SHOULD SUPPORT CARING FOR THOSE IN NEED...

OH, FOR THOSE WHO MAY NOT SEE THAT OTHERS.. NEEDS MATTER

I HOPE WHEN YOU STAND BEFORE GOD , I HOPE, YOU HAVE SOME GREAT ANSWERS..

Better Yet.. I do Pray you shall see the error of your ways and repent
To a more kind Caring Heart

America NEEDS a HEALTH CARE SYSTEM THAT SUPPORTS ALL IT's PEOPLE NOT JUST THE WELL OFF.
AND DOSN'T DRIVE THE REST OF THE LESS THEN WEALTHY FURTHER INTO THE POOR HOUSE..

OTHER COUNTRIES CAN DO THIS WHY CAN'T WE IN AMERICA..

PERHAPS THE RICH.. THAT HAVE RAN AMERICA FOR SO LONG ARE WORRIED THE THE COMMON PEOPLE ARE TO UNINPORANT ANYWAY, AND THEY MIGHT LOSE A FEW DOLLARS IF THEY SUPPORT HEALTH CARE FOR THE MASSES..

BUT AGAIN IF YOU ARE BLESSED WITH GREAT HEALTH CARE, WHY WOULD YOU CARE ABOUT YOUR FELLOW MAN
AND THEIR NEEDS ANYWAY. RIGHT..

JUST BECAUSE OTHER NATIONS HAVE GREAT HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS FREE FOR THEIR PEOPLE THERE IS NO REASON FOR AMERICA TO DO THIS TOO..RIGHT..

returning to my Hole..

 

[safn1949]

You do realize that health insurance companies run on an average 4% profit margin,hardly stinking rich.My health insurance costs me $250 a month,I'm 54 and in good health.I have never been turned away or treated poorly when I was poor and had no insurance.

The simple fact is with the size of our population in the US it is impossible to afford the type of system that England and Canada have,it's my understanding that the tax rate in Canada is to the tune of 48%,hardly a deal.Von Bek that is an excellent observation sir.Anyone from Canada feel free to correct me if I am wrong.:d

 

[cheezyflier]

I gress everyone has a opinion on this don't they..

in the polls there is always, no matter how polarizing the issue, some percentage that claims "undecided"
i get this mental picture in my mind every time, of someone standing on the corner with a clipboard, talking to some whinos

 

[Barfly]

In the US, the condition for help is that you can afford it.
In the UK, the condition for help is that you need help.

No one in the US is refused emergency medical care... whether they can pay for it or not.

 

[Piglet]

I see Cuba is no.39 on that list below even evil ol' USA Wasn't Cuba praised by Mega-size Micheal Moore in one of his flicks? Don't Those Hollywood types always say how Cuba is some Healthcare Paradise?

 

[MCDesigns]

Wow, I'm really surprised at how little some responders here know (Americans, that is) about the contents of Obama's and our Senate's socialized medicine plans for this country.

And no, Lionheart, working Americans generally don't see an obligation to take care of and pay for every "entitlement" that the "poor" seem to think they should receive !

WELL SAID!!!
I am all for govt health care, but NOT in the form that is trying to be pushed on us at the moment and NOT by the ones are doing the pushing

 

[djscoo]

I see Cuba is no.39 on that list below even evil ol' USA Wasn't Cuba praised by Mega-size Micheal Moore in one of his flicks? Don't Those Hollywood types always say how Cuba is some Healthcare Paradise?

We're watching "Sicko" in my sociology class right now actually. The premise was that he took rescue workers from September 11th who had lingering health issues and no insurance to Guantanamo Bay to try to get them the same medical care Gitmo prisoners receive for free from our government. Of course they were ignored and then they sort of outlined the health-care system in Cuba, eventually taking them to a clinic where they all got check-ups, MRI's, dental cleanings etc. for free.

You have to take a lot of what Micheal Moore says with a grain of salt. He is terribly biased, but having said that, he does do a good job at exposing the hypocrisy and irony in the health care system. If you haven't seen it, it's a pretty interesting film that will get you really frustrated with the way things are.

 

[MyassisDragon]

Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School -- from a CNN Report

This is nothing short of a national disgrace in my book.

 

[cheezyflier]

i wouldn't watch a michael moore film if you threatened me at gunpoint .
i wouldn't cross the street to pee on him if he was burning on fire.

 

[Toastmaker]

Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School -- from a CNN Report

This is nothing short of a national disgrace in my book.

Certainly would be, if it were true. Deaths "associated" with the lack of health insurance is intentionally ambiguous at best, and completely fabricated, at worst. Given the absolute fact that one can receive critical care at any ER, regardless of insurance status (or even citizenship !) renders that alarmist statement false.

Those without insurance may not be receiving the optimum level of preventive or diagnostic care that would be desireable but nobody DIES directly due to a lack (or lack of interest in) health insurance.

 

[Bjoern]

I see Cuba is no.39 on that list below even evil ol' USA Wasn't Cuba praised by Mega-size Micheal Moore in one of his flicks? Don't Those Hollywood types always say how Cuba is some Healthcare Paradise?

Having public health care doesn't necessarily mean that it's good.
I couldn't see a reason to go the long, rocky career path in medicine if I knew that I wouldn't make much more than a farmer anyways.

So I guess it's because of the lack of doctors.

Socialism and economic diversity and prosperity don't go together that well.

 

[Skittles]

No one in the US is refused emergency medical care... whether they can pay for it or not.

And for non-emergency care?

Emergency care covers about 1% of all health care needs, and the suggestion that the fact that emergency medical needs are tended to is no argument whatsoever for the US private health service.

 

[Skittles]

Certainly would be, if it were true. Deaths "associated" with the lack of health insurance is intentionally ambiguous at best, and completely fabricated, at worst. Given the absolute fact that one can receive critical care at any ER, regardless of insurance status (or even citizenship !) renders that alarmist statement false.

Those without insurance may not be receiving the optimum level of preventive or diagnostic care that would be desireable but nobody DIES directly due to a lack (or lack of interest in) health insurance.

I'm sorry but that is completely and absolutely wrong. A summary of one of the (literally) hundreds of studies out there that completely contradict your predictions;

Uninsured children who wind up in the hospital are much more likely to die than children covered by either private or government insurance plans, according to one of the first studies to assess the impact of insurance coverage on hospitalized children.



Researchers at Johns Hopkins Children’s Center analyzed data from more than 23 million children’s hospitalizations in 37 states from 1988 to 2005. Compared with insured children, uninsured children faced a 60 percent increased risk of dying, the researchers found.



The authors estimated that at least 1,000 hospitalized children died each year simply because they lacked insurance, accounting for 16,787 of some 38,649 children’s deaths nationwide during the period analyzed.
“If you take two kids from the same demographic background — the same race, same gender, same neighborhood income level and same number of co-morbidities or other illnesses — the kid without insurance is 60 percent more likely to die in the hospital than the kid in the bed right next to him or her who is insured,” said David C. Chang, co-director of the pediatric surgery outcomes group at the children’s center and an author of the study, which appeared today in The Journal of Public Health.



Although the research was not set up to identify why uninsured children were more likely to die, it found that they were more likely to gain access to care through the emergency room, suggesting they might have more advanced disease by the time they were hospitalized.
In addition, uninsured children were in the hospital, on average, for less than a day when they died, compared with a full day for insured children. Children without insurance incurred lower hospital charges — $8,058 on average, compared with $20,951 for insured children.
In children who survived hospitalization, the length of stay and charges did not vary with insurance status.
The paper’s lead author, Dr. Fizan Abdullah, assistant professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins, dismissed the possibility that providers gave less care or denied procedures to the uninsured. “The children who were uninsured literally died before the hospital could provide them more care,” Dr. Abdullah said.
Furthermore, Dr. Abdullah said, indications are that the uninsured children “are further along in their course of illness.”


The results are all the more striking because children’s deaths are so rare that they could be examined only by a very large study, said Dr. Peter J. Pronovost, a professor of surgery at Johns Hopkins and an author of the new study.


“The striking thing is that children don’t often die,” Dr. Pronovost said. “This study provides further evidence that the need to insure everyone is a moral issue, not just an economic one.”
An estimated seven million children are uninsured in the United States, despite recent efforts to extend coverage under the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program.


Advocates for children said they were saddened by the findings but not surprised.
“We know from studies of adults that lack of insurance contributes to worse outcomes, and this study provides evidence that there are similar consequences for children,” said Alison Buist, director of child health at the Children’s Defense Fund, a nonprofit advocacy organization. “If you wait until a child gets care at a hospital, you have missed an opportunity to get them the types of screening and preventive services that prevent them from getting to that level of severity to begin with.”



The most common reasons for children being hospitalized were complications from birth, pneumonia and asthma. The study found that the reasons did not differ depending on insurance status.
Earlier studies have found that uninsured children are more likely than insured children to have unmet medical needs, like untreated asthma or diabetes, and are more likely to go for two years without seeing a doctor.

 

[Toastmaker]

The excerpt from the Public Health Journal report on this "study" that you posted contradicts itself in such a way that casts a serious cloud of suspicion on it's validity, not once, but twice;

The article states; "Although the research was not set up to identify why uninsured children were more likely to die". . . What ? couldn't identify the cause of this supposed increase in likely death, yet they feel comfortable blaming it on a lack of insurance ??? And further, have the audacity to assign a frequency percentage number, 60%, (which sounds pretty darn precise) for a hypothesis who's cause cannot even be identified.

Secondly, the article clearly indicates that uninsured children likely do not receive as much attention from doctors (preventive medicine and diagnostics) as insured children - EXACTLY what I said in my post that you take exception to! This is not caused by a lack of insurance - it's caused by a lack of competant PARENTING ! Innumerable hospitals, clinics and private practitioners will treat, diagnose and prescribe pediatric patients regardless of insurance status.

What you posted is a self-serving "research" report (with no need to even identify "why" their stated results exist !) from the nation's most voracious begger and receiver of federal funds for pediatric medical research - Johns Hopkins Pediatric Medical Research Center (part of the greater Johns Hopkins medical conglomerate in Baltimore, Md.)

This is not science. It's chasing federal research grant funding with a bit of political agenda thrown in for flavoring.

The problem is that it tastes like crap.