PDA

View Full Version : public healthcare stats



paul oman
07-28-2010, 10:00 AM
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after
diagnosis:
U.S. 65% England 46% Canada 42%


Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment
within six months:
U.S. 93% England 15% Canada 43%


Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six
months:
U.S. 90% England 15% Canada 43%


Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77% England 40% Canada 43%


Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71 England 14 Canada 18


Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in
"excellent health":
U.S. 12% England 2% Canada 6%

Brian Palmer
07-28-2010, 10:13 AM
Source?

downthecreek
07-28-2010, 11:27 AM
We've seen his before, Paul....


Not only that, but we have seen how highly selective and open to challenge all these figures are.

For example:

In a recently published OECD Health at a Glance 2009 report [58 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/169#B58)], two diabetes-related indicators [admission rates for acute diabetic complications; diabetes lower extremity amputation rates (denominators were general populations rather than peoples with diabetes as specified in the original indicator set listed in Table 3 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/169/table/T3))], along with the other 21 indicators, have been used to measure health system performance across OECD countries. Diabetes lower extremity amputation rates were higher in the US (36/100,000 population) than in New Zealand, Canada and the UK (9-12/100,000), as were admission rates for acute diabetic complications (57/100,000 versus 1-32/100,000). It appeared that diabetes management might be much poorer at the primary care level in the US which led to substantially higher rates of diabetes-related complications. Our review provided evidence of relatively poor control of HbA1c among patients in the US, a direct measure of diabetes management in primary care. With availability and comparability of data up to standard in the future, inclusion of indicators such as HbA1c testing and control into selected OECD health care quality indicators for reporting would enhance understanding of variation in health system performance across countries and point to ways for improvement.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/169 (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/10/169Each)

Each of these "stats" is open to challenge, although I do not have the time to go through all of them in the same way.

It is always interesting to note that American opponents of universal health care systems are always very careful to avoid quoting the many statistics that show how much better the UK, Australian, NZ and Canadian systems perform in some important areas than the US does. They are equally careful to avoid quoting statistics from other countries with universal health care that do better than the US on the measures they do like to highlight.

What fatuous drivel passes for "debate" when it comes to health care in the US.

GaryK
07-28-2010, 12:10 PM
Looks like I've found the "Source" of the stats.
The Investor's Business Daily quoted stats from the "United Nations International Health Organization".
Only problem is, the "United Nations International Health Organization" doesn't exist.....
Seems to be fictional stats to fuel the (mainly US) right wing blogsphere.
Drivel indeed.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-28-2010, 12:23 PM
This is really confusing. Why does England and Canada have health care system rankings above the US? Why is the USA health system ranked 37th in the world with the kind of stats that are listed?

Peerie Maa
07-28-2010, 12:26 PM
Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics.

downthecreek
07-28-2010, 12:44 PM
Looks like I've found the "Source" of the stats.
The Investor's Business Daily quoted stats from the "United Nations International Health Organization".
Only problem is, the "United Nations International Health Organization" doesn't exist.....
Seems to be fictional stats to fuel the (mainly US) right wing blogsphere.
Drivel indeed.

Investors Business Daily? Wasn't that the one that claimed that Stephen Hawking would have been "left to die" if he has lived in England???????

Oh, my!

Kaa
07-28-2010, 12:46 PM
It is always interesting to note that American opponents of universal health care systems are always very careful to avoid quoting the many statistics that show how much better the UK, Australian, NZ and Canadian systems perform in some important areas than the US does. They are equally careful to avoid quoting statistics from other countries with universal health care that do better than the US on the measures they do like to highlight.

:D

http://skeptico.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/pot_kettle.jpg

Kaa

Kaa
07-28-2010, 12:53 PM
Kaa, time to get a new cartoon... that one is rather shopworn already.

So is the reason for its appearance :-P

Kaa

Pugwash
07-28-2010, 01:05 PM
To be honest I'm not sure that I trust any statistics from an industry that can't even be bothered to wash it's hands.


An estimated 80,000 patients per year develop catheter-related bloodstream infections, or CRBSIs -- which can occur when tubes that are inserted into a vein to monitor blood flow or deliver medication and nutrients are improperly prepared or left in longer than necessary. About 30,000 patients die as a result, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accounting for nearly a third of annual deaths from hospital-acquired infections in the United States.



Yet evidence suggests hospital workers could all but eliminate CRBSIs by following a five-step checklist that is stunningly basic: (1) Wash hands with soap; (2) clean patient's skin with an effective antiseptic; (3) put sterile drapes over the entire patient; (4) wear a sterile mask, hat, gown and gloves; (5) put a sterile dressing over the catheter site.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071204893.html?hpid=topnews

downthecreek
07-28-2010, 01:18 PM
Kaa, time to get a new cartoon... that one is rather shopworn already.

And completely irrelevant, of course.

George Jung
07-28-2010, 01:23 PM
Maybe not. While it's always entertaining to compare healthcare systems, followed by the perfunctory observations of PMJ, none of those stat comparisons looks at the entire picture. The stats initiating this thread may be true; so may the world rankings. All are partial pictures, none are complete, and all support a perspective/agenda. Kaas post is surprisingly apt.

johnw
07-28-2010, 01:37 PM
Maybe not. While it's always entertaining to compare healthcare systems, followed by the perfunctory observations of PMJ, none of those stat comparisons looks at the entire picture. The stats initiating this thread may be true; so may the world rankings. All are partial pictures, none are complete, and all support a perspective/agenda. Kaas post is surprisingly apt.
Or would be, if Creekula were cherry-picking data to make a point rather than pointing to the tendency of people to cherry-pick data.

Kaa
07-28-2010, 01:40 PM
Or would be, if Creekula were cherry-picking data to make a point rather than pointing to the tendency of people to cherry-pick data.

She wasn't pointing to the tendency of people to cherry-pick data. She was pointing to the tendency of "American opponents of universal health care systems" to cherry-pick data :-)

Kaa

Kaa
07-28-2010, 01:53 PM
If, as you say, "All are partial pictures, none are complete, and all support a perspective/agenda", then how in the world can they also "may be true"?

ROFL...

Kaa

downthecreek
07-28-2010, 02:04 PM
She wasn't pointing to the tendency of people to cherry-pick data. She was pointing to the tendency of "American opponents of universal health care systems" to cherry-pick data :-)

Kaa

Too right. Cherry pick or falsify. If you think that's a good way to debate your situation in America, that's fine. You're easily suited, is all. :D

downthecreek
07-28-2010, 02:07 PM
Kaas post is surprisingly apt.

Ah, the "neutral partisan" strikes again.

Why, exactly, is it "apt"?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
07-28-2010, 05:12 PM
Maybe not. While it's always entertaining to compare healthcare systems, followed by the perfunctory observations of PMJ, none of those stat comparisons looks at the entire picture. The stats initiating this thread may be true; so may the world rankings. All are partial pictures, none are complete, and all support a perspective/agenda. Kaas post is surprisingly apt.


George has said something like this a number of times before. Pretty much total crap, but there you go. The United Nations study on global health systems looks at a huge range of well documented statistics before the rankings are finally applied. George seems to think because he works in health care, that qualifies him to critique scientifically created study methodology. The American health system works extremely well for people who have a lot of money. Funny thing about that is that most things in life work fairly well for people with lots of money. Weird huh? The failures in the American health care system are well documented, and don't need to be replayed here. The only thing that gets replayed is George's (and others) illegitimate rebuttal of the facts. I personally get entertainment from someone supposedly as well educated as a doctor saying things that are simply aren't true.

I am glad that the USA has at least it's foot in the door of universal healthcare. A lot of Americans really needed it.

ljb5
08-01-2010, 12:31 AM
She wasn't pointing to the tendency of people to cherry-pick data. She was pointing to the tendency of "American opponents of universal health care systems" to cherry-pick data :-)

Kaa

This thread was started by Paul Oman using statistics that are either falsified, or merely cherry-picked.

This is his thread.

Seems kinda silly to speculate that some other person might have done some other cherry-picking on some different thread at some different time.

This is Paul's thread and it's deceptive.

Believe it or not, the UN really does much more sophisticated and nuanced analysis than Paul Oman. So if Paul posts a few unsourced and unsupported 'facts,' and then PMJ posts a UN study, who do you think is more credible?

paladin
08-01-2010, 02:32 AM
An estimated 80,000 patients per year develop catheter-related bloodstream infections, or CRBSIs -- which can occur when tubes that are inserted into a vein to monitor blood flow or deliver medication and nutrients are improperly prepared or left in longer than necessary. About 30,000 patients die as a result, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, accounting for nearly a third of annual deaths from hospital-acquired infections in the United States.



Yet evidence suggests hospital workers could all but eliminate CRBSIs by following a five-step checklist that is stunningly basic: (1) Wash hands with soap; (2) clean patient's skin with an effective antiseptic; (3) put sterile drapes over the entire patient; (4) wear a sterile mask, hat, gown and gloves; (5) put a sterile dressing over the catheter site.


And I just spent 2 weeks in an isolated ward and 3 surgeries because of this....the conditions in a center run by doctors at the hospital where I was taken...the dialysis center is a "sideline" operation.

huisjen
08-01-2010, 06:58 AM
Was anyone fooled into thinking they'd get anything else from a Paul Oman thread? It's like being deceived when Rain Man says a candy bar costs $100.

Besides, 87% of statistics, including this one, are made up on the spot.

Dan

paul oman
08-01-2010, 08:51 AM
Norm - I'm weening my self off the bilge - not a good place to hang out for folks trying to get a real life. It's hard to come to the forum and not 'just take a peek" into the bilge. Is there some sort of 12 step program to rid onself of the bilge? -

Yes, source claimed to be a UN report.....
but, we all die anyway, so what difference does it make?
Obama care may just make it that much easier, and isn't that a good thing?

final remarks (hopefully) is that the forum in general certainly slams (is EXTREMELY closed minded) regarding anything that is outside their point of view. One has to figure that almost everything has a grain of truth in it, no matter how it gets distorted etc. Little minds slam, smarter folks consider... I visit the bilge to consider what you folks offer. Most of you just like to attack... I suggest you try more fiber in your diets.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-01-2010, 08:56 AM
Norm - I'm weening my self off the bilge - not a good place to hang out for folks trying to get a real life. It's hard to come to the forum and not 'just take a peek" into the bilge. Is there some sort of 12 step program to rid onself of the bilge? -

Yes, source claimed to be a UN report.....
but, we all die anyway, so what difference does it make?
Obama care may just make it that much easier, and isn't that a good thing?

final remarks (hopefully) is that the forum in general certainly slams (is EXTREMELY closed minded) regarding anything that is outside their point of view. One has to figure that almost everything has a grain of truth in it, no matter how it gets distorted etc. Little minds slam, smarter folks consider... I visit the bilge to consider what you folks offer. Most of you just like to attack... I suggest you try more fiber in your diets.

Sorry that what you're selling couldn't find any buyers here. You have to remember that you folks on the Right had control of the levers of government for 15 years and it didn't turn out very well. Maybe a period of sackcloth and ashes might spruce up your image a bit.

McMike
08-01-2010, 09:54 AM
Norm - I'm weening my self off the bilge - not a good place to hang out for folks trying to get a real life. It's hard to come to the forum and not 'just take a peek" into the bilge. Is there some sort of 12 step program to rid onself of the bilge? -

Yes, source claimed to be a UN report.....
but, we all die anyway, so what difference does it make?
Obama care may just make it that much easier, and isn't that a good thing?

final remarks (hopefully) is that the forum in general certainly slams (is EXTREMELY closed minded) regarding anything that is outside their point of view. One has to figure that almost everything has a grain of truth in it, no matter how it gets distorted etc. Little minds slam, smarter folks consider... I visit the bilge to consider what you folks offer. Most of you just like to attack... I suggest you try more fiber in your diets.

Or you could simply admit you were wrong or that the info you posted is wrong and call it a day.

paul oman
08-01-2010, 06:26 PM
source - Investors Business Daily May 27, 2009

also covered on congressman's Mark Kirk current web site http://kirk.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3621&Itemid=88

I accept your apologies... I know reality hurts you guys on the left.

huisjen
08-01-2010, 06:59 PM
Let me give you all a tip:



This message is hidden because paul oman is on your ignore list.



It's that easy.

Dan

RonW
08-01-2010, 08:05 PM
Wait hold it.....I hate to be the fly in the soup...but..but..

I just read england is putting the axe to their health care plan, something to do about money...

Now where was that link..oh yea here it is..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/7908742/Axe-falls-on-NHS-services.html

well it looks like paul may be vindicated, or at least out on paroll..

ljb5
08-01-2010, 10:19 PM
I just read england is putting the axe to their health care plan, something to do about money...

Everyone is having a hard time funding health care.

The U.S.A. included.

B_B
08-01-2010, 11:33 PM
So why is that?

And from 6th grade economics class, it would seem as if it is time to either increase revenues, which is highly unlikey.

Or the common sense and more realistic approach would be to cut costs.

So what do you think? Cut cost or increase revenues? Tell us LBJ..
I'll tell you if you'd like.
There has been a systematic underfunding of Gov't programs in order to make the claim that they don't work. It happens everywhere. You cut funding, people cry out that 'things aren't working' and you blame the program itself, not the funding structure.

Here you go: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita
US spent $4,631 per person on health care
Canada spent $2,535
United Kingdom spent $1,764

So the UK spends 38% per capita what the US does and they're CUTTING their health care budget.
Lovely picture isn't it?

What would the US system look like if Insurers, including the US Gov't-Medicare/Medicaid, decided they'd only pay 38% of what they're paying now?
Lovely picture isn't it?

Not only is the US the best system in the world for those who can afford it, it's the most inefficient, by a long shot.
Switzerland is #2 on the list and they ONLY spend 70% per capita what the US does; HOWEVER in the US 25 million (http://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1SKPC_enCA325CA327&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=how+many+people+in+the+United+States+are+underin sured+medical)of your folks have no health coverage atall (that's more than 3 times as many folks as live in Switzerland!).

"We're number ONE, we're number 1!" say it together now; say it often enough and you might begin to believe it.

Glen Longino
08-01-2010, 11:55 PM
"Norm - I'm weening my self off the bilge..."

Anything I can do to help you, Paul, just ask.:D
BTW, you were nasty when you got here!
The bilge did not make you nasty!
I suspect you'll still be nasty after you "ween" yourself from the bilge.

B_B
08-02-2010, 12:20 AM
Riddle me this - Which system is "more" broke? The one which "doesn't work" spending $4,600 per person and doesn't cover everyone, or the one which "doesn't work" spending $1,700 per person covering everyone?

EDIT: which system would be better - if we took the one which didn't cover everyone at $4,600 per person and decided to cover everyone, or if we took a system which covered everyone at $1,700 per person and doubled its funding?

EDIT 2: W.H.O. ranking has the UK at 18th and the US at 37th b.t.w. Canada's a measly 30th. Pitiful. Damned Conservative Gov't. http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Glen Longino
08-02-2010, 12:29 AM
Hey, Ron, shut up for a minute and listen to Braam, will you please!

B_B
08-02-2010, 12:37 AM
Hey glen, Braam hasn't said anything except more funding which equals more taxes..
I've said a lot more than more funding is necessary.

I said explicitly that the US system is inefficient. See my first post. It's the only bit that's underlined.

Riddle me this: why is it that the US spends >30% more than the next spendthrift nation and STILL can't cover all it's citizens?

EDIT:
Which system should be better?
US spent $4,631 per person on health care
Canada spent $2,535
United Kingdom spent $1,764
WHO ranking: US 37th, Canada 30th, UK 18th.

Efficiency. Remove profit motive and you increase efficiency.

Glen Longino
08-02-2010, 12:39 AM
More taxes for you?
No?
I figgered!
No more taxes for me either.
Look, we've never created a war we could not fund.
What makes you think we can't fund health care?

B_B
08-02-2010, 12:44 AM
And riddle this, why do we spend 30% more then the next spendthrift..simple it is called missmanagement and missapropiations of funds.
A broken government.
Uhh, nope, it's called profit motive and the costs of competition (advertising anyone?) - almost all US health care insurers, and many US health care providers, are for profit. Your country spends 30% more than anyone else, more than twice what the UK does, and still manages to piss it all away and leave more than 25 million folks underinsured. Thanks Capitalism!

Glen Longino
08-02-2010, 12:49 AM
GW broke the government, now Obama is fixing it!
Quit being alarmist! You're too late!

David G
08-02-2010, 01:05 AM
I am reminded of the 6 blind Buddhists and the elephant.

Horace
08-02-2010, 01:06 AM
Which system should be better?
US spent $4,631 per person on health care
Canada spent $2,535
United Kingdom spent $1,764
WHO ranking: US 37th, Canada 30th, UK 18th.

Efficiency. Remove profit motive and you increase efficiency.

At some point it would be helpful to stop quoting the WHO rankings incessantly, as if they clinched every argument: not everyone thinks they have much meaning.
Read carefully, for a start: http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB125608054324397621.html

B_B
08-02-2010, 01:14 AM
At some point it would be helpful to stop quoting the WHO rankings incessantly, as if they clinched every argument: not everyone thinks they have much meaning.
Read carefully, for a start: http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB125608054324397621.html

I didn't quote them incessantly, I quoted them as a juxtaposition to provide per capita health care spending with a little context.
edit: the article you linked to still suggest the US is half as efficient as the UK - the graph provides no real measurement, merely a position - UK ranked 9 out of 20, US ranked 15. "The flawed WHO report shouldn't obscure that the U.S. is lagging its peers in some major barometers of public health."

Why don't you comment on that?

Seriously, how come the US manages to spend $4,600 per person while, for example, the UK gets by with $1,700? Which system ought to be working better?

B_B
08-02-2010, 01:30 AM
Dude, it is obvious that you are a socialist, hate those capitalist pigs and have a hard on for the U.S.

Now I can see glen's concerns, but why do you keep repeating that we spend 30% more then the next spendthrift nation, why do you care, you live in canada and it ain't coming out of your pocket.

try reading this..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/79...-services.html
Following your link I get an error message, which is appropriate given that I get an internal error message with most of your posts ;) :D

As I can't comment on the article you'd like me to read, but seeing it's from the UK, I'll assume it's an article about how 'crappy' the UK health care system is.

My answer is a question: The UK spends $1,700 per person on health care yearly. The US spends $4,600. Which system do you think ought to be better?
Do you believe the US system (which leaves 25 million folks under insured), despite it's corruption (your words), is more than 2.7 times better than the UK system (which manages to cover everyone)?

David G
08-02-2010, 01:39 AM
I am reminded of the 6 blind Buddhists and the elephant.

OK... skip the Buddhist part. Make is 6 blind, pugnacious, Irishmen. Maybe they're deaf too?

B_B
08-02-2010, 02:00 AM
The U.S. system with all of it's flaws is still about 10 times better then the U.K.'s so we are getting one hell of a bang for the buck compared to jolly good old england...
Where do you get this number? The WHO's (somewhat maligned apparently) stats suggest other wise as does the article linked to by Horace in post 49. Even the absolute BS figures quoted in the OP don't concur with your "ten times better" assertion, b.t.w.

If we're going to argue with stats and facts we just pull out of our heinies (similar to your entire post, #55) then we should probably start over.

And in that case, the one with totally made up stats, the US is best! :D

The Bigfella
08-02-2010, 02:28 AM
Oh I see exactly what you are saying..What is wrong in the U.S. is simple the doctors and services related to are outragiously overpriced. And then the doctors are scamming the system with a lot of useless tests and overpriced prescriptions. The system is being scammed that is what is wrong, and why, because up to now through gov't payments and insurance payments it has been easy money, way to easy money. And plenty of it..

Now you are missing my point, which is there are those that believe it is their right to have this free medical.
And there are those that believe it is not their duty or obligation to pay for others.

Now we are right back to the funding, is the funding voluntarily or is it forced funding .

Gee, that's a really interesting perspective. Do you hold that same point of view for defence? For education? For law and order?

I'm regarded as sitting on Genghis Khan's right shoulder over on Oz Politics - but I have to say, if there's one thing we seem to do right here, its public health. It could be better, but lets take a look at inputs and outcomes.

Using the data in one of the links provided earlier, we see that in 2005 US expenditure on health as a %age of GDP was second highest in the world, at 15.2%. Australia were way down the list, 28 places lower, with 8.8% of GDP. That's the inputs

http://www.photius.com/rankings/total_health_expenditure_as_pecent_of_gdp_2000_to_ 2005.html

Now - how about the outcomes? Well, let's use healthy life expectancy - same source grouping.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_life_table2.html

Yep - Australia, with its public health system, is up there at position number 2 - just behind Japan. Canada and the UK are at 12 and 14, the USA is doing real well at ... oops, 24th on the list - just ahead of Cyprus and Dominica. Well done guys.

When it comes to health - in my right wing view, I reckon its one of those lottery items - you know, where its luck of the draw whether you are born healthy, avoid serious injury, etc. I'm happy to dip my hand in the pocket and pay my fair share of community expenses on that one. Just like I do on defence, education, etc. You see, I reckon when I do that, I benefit by having a better community to live in. One without millions of unfortunates clogging the footpaths.

Then again, I live in a community where 2.4% of males don't die by bullet. Maybe we are different?

downthecreek
08-02-2010, 02:33 AM
Plenty of the same old drivel in this thread, I see. Not least RonW's latest fatuous offering. The American papers are, by the way, an inexhaustible source both of drivel such as the Investor's Business Daily howler about Hawking - that was inded the paper in which it appeared - and of harrowing factual descriptions of the problems and failures of the American health care system. Just occasionally you might see a sensible, balanced bit of analysis that focuses on the realities - which are that all systems have their strengths and their weaknesses. Having had a lifetime of excellent medical care from the NHS (without which I would be dead now) and having seen at close quarters the experiences of family members and friends in America, I can only shake my head sadly at the furore. It's like watching ten year olds in the playground trying to shout down a rival gang.

No country is better placed to set up a sensible system, given the immense amount of experience available across the world. What a pity reasoned debate is drowned out by the deafening chorus of hysteria and scaremongering that seems to be the favoured tactic of the American right. I'm afraid the fact that the myths and lies are repeated by politicians means nothing. I've heard some of the most ill-informed drivel of all from them. And as far as the pundits are concerned - the likes of Limbaugh are positively comical in their confident outpourings of myths and lies.

I do find it a little surprising that Americans who are always going on about their freedoms should be so happy to accept the tyranny of being tied to employers or abusive spouses by the fear of losing medical cover, or the rigorous rationing of health care imposed by the insurance companies, or the threat of bankruptcy when serious illness strikes......... But there you are. Funny place, America..........

Edited to add two further points:

1. The comments on the Hawking affair provide some hilarious examples of the inability of the hysteria merchants to face facts that contradict their beloved prejudices. Here are a couple:- "He must have had private health care". Wrong. As he himself has attested, Hawking has always been looked after by the NHS. "Of course they coddled him - he's world famous". Wrong. Hawking was an unknown undergraduate at Cambridge University when he was diagnosed with Motor Neurone Disease. And so it goes on.

2. Given their egregious prejudice and dire inability to check simple facts (as illustrated by that farrago) I really would be most cuatious about basing any investment decisions on "information" they may supply. :)

The Bigfella
08-02-2010, 02:42 AM
Nice post Ma'am

downthecreek
08-02-2010, 06:19 AM
Nice post Ma'am

Thank you.

ljb5
08-02-2010, 07:34 AM
RonW,

Nobody likes taxes, but responsible adults know we sometimes have to do things we don't like.

Our health care system is more expensive and less efficient than other developed countries.

stevebaby
08-02-2010, 09:23 AM
So inform me, what countries have better health care then the U.S. Go ahead and list them, in order.
World Health Organisation
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba

Kaa
08-02-2010, 10:26 AM
Plenty of the same old drivel ... an inexhaustible source both of drivel ... the deafening chorus of hysteria and scaremongering ... some of the most ill-informed drivel ... confident outpourings of myths and lies ... the inability of the hysteria merchants to face facts ... egregious prejudice and dire inability to check simple facts ...

The lady doth protest too much, methinks :-)

Kaa

Pugwash
08-02-2010, 11:07 AM
So inform me, what countries have better health care then the U.S. Go ahead and list them, in order.

Hey upthecreek, Take off your blinders and read the article from (UK) papaer concerning a fatuous axe on the (UK) fatuous health program and let's hear a fatuous comment. The link is above, I posted it about 3 times for fatuous liberals to be able to see...

Your first question has been answered by Stevebaby.

And in your heady rush of bluster & gloat you failed to note one thing..


The Sunday Telegraph found the details of hundreds of cuts buried in obscure appendices to lengthy policy and strategy documents published by trusts. In most cases, local communities appear to be unaware of the plans.


Public reaction in 3....2....1....




http://bestanimations.com/military/Explosions/Explode-02-june.gif

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-02-2010, 11:42 AM
LBJ_

Well lbj I just hate to disagree with you . BUT to tell the truth as I see it, liberals, socialist, and progressives LOVE TAXES. They think taxes are the greatest thing since sliced bread. And why would that be, because more taxers = more programs and more funding of existing programs. A program for everyone and everyone has a program, paid for by your tax dollar at work..




So inform me, what countries have better health care then the U.S. Go ahead and list them, in order.

Hey upthecreek, Take off your blinders and read the article from (UK) papaer concerning a fatuous axe on the (UK) fatuous health program and let's hear a fatuous comment. The link is above, I posted it about 3 times for fatuous liberals to be able to see...

I think it was a supreme court justice who said, "taxes are the price a citizen pays to live in a civilized society"", or words to that effect.
Can you see Cincinnati without I-71, I-75 and the ring roads that connect them? You want to go back to the time when the only way to get to Covinton was on that wonder of wonders ,the Roebling Bridge?
All the interstates and bridges your town benefits from were paid for by taxes dollars which were far in excess of what Cincinnatians could have ever amassed on their own. In fact just trying to maintain all those roadways and bridges would bankrupt Cinci in short order. Your town got all those goodies and all it had to contribute was a small percentage of the cost. And without further tax monies all of it will go to hell. Is that what you want?

Kaa
08-02-2010, 11:59 AM
All the interstates and bridges your town benefits from were paid for by taxes dollars which were far in excess of what Cincinnatians could have ever amassed on their own. In fact just trying to maintain all those roadways and bridges would bankrupt Cinci in short order. Your town got all those goodies and all it had to contribute was a small percentage of the cost.

LOL. So do tell, who is that benefactor contributing vast amounts of money to prop up Cincinnati infrastructure? Whose money the Federal government redistributes towards "all those goodies"?

Are you quite sure you're getting a lot of something for nothing? :D

Kaa

B_B
08-02-2010, 12:06 PM
World Health Organisation
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

1 France
...
18 United Kingdom
...
30 Canada
...
32 Australia
...
37 United States of America
...
39 Cuba
They don't like this ^ one (http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB125608054324397621.html) because it uses 'complicated' methodology. One of the reasons the US ranks so low in this ranking is because it gets so little for the money it spends - it's hugely inefficient.

Horace, in post 49, prefers we use this chart, possibly because it only compares 20 countries as opposed to 39 so the US can't rank 37th ;) - I like it better too because it ranks Canada higher than the UK and Australia :D:
http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BB351A_NUMBG_NS_20091020222040.gif

B_B
08-02-2010, 03:07 PM
What a frigging joke....well maybe then if more knew these facts a lot of foreigners wouldn't come here for what they believe is the numero 1 medical in the world....
Save your arguments, this one is stupid enough....
No-one has argued that the best medical care is not available in the US - what has been argued, and what the rankings reflect, is ACCESS to that health care for everyone.

I have no doubt that the US has some of the very best surgeons, doctors, clinics, procedures, drugs, etc. in the world, and would rank the best care available in the US possibly as the best available in the world. Foreigners go the US to access that best.

What's missing, for many US citizens (not your illegal immigrant strawman), is the access to that care that is so easily given to outsiders with a wallet.

A friend's father had liver trouble. He needed a new liver and was put on a waiting list. They looked at living donation but the surgery required (not garden variety living donor liver transplant, he needed extra bits) is not approved in Canada as the risk for the donor is too high (death rate two or three times higher than regular living donor, increased risk of other complications) so they looked to the Mayo Clinic. If a non-living donor hadn't been found they would probably have had to spend in excess of $400,000 for the surgery at the Mayo (because the surgery is not performed in Canada there is a chance that the Gov't would've paid for it, thankfully the other donor was found and they didn't have to find out what the policy is). FWIW they also found a clinic in India which had one of the world's leading liver transplant doctors which was willing to do the surgery for, IIRC, $70,000.

ccmanuals
08-02-2010, 03:33 PM
Well let me clear this up for you boys...It is not my duty and obligation to see to the wants and needs of your family. It is your duty.

And I don't appreciate having things taken from my family to be given to your family. You need to learn how to take care of your own family.

And quit expecting everyone else to pick up the slack..

What is mine is mine, and it is my decision as to what and how much and even to who if anyone I give to.It is my decision, not yours. You not only expect but

demand that I am required to give. That isn't giving, it is taking..Who are you to think you have the right to take so freely.

Well, there you have it. The fundamental difference between the left and the right. The left says let's all work together for the benefit of everyone. The right says, screw you, I got mine now get your own.

B_B
08-02-2010, 03:45 PM
Well let me clear this up for you boys...It is not my duty and obligation to see to the wants and needs of your family. It is your duty.

And I don't appreciate having things taken from my family to be given to your family. You need to learn how to take care of your own family.

And quit expecting everyone else to pick up the slack..

What is mine is mine, and it is my decision as to what and how much and even to who if anyone I give to.It is my decision, not yours. You not only expect but

demand that I am required to give. That isn't giving, it is taking..Who are you to think you have the right to take so freely.
Then why be such a whiner regarding the 37th place ranking?
You got yours, the rest of the country can go suck lemons! Why complain?

Kaa
08-02-2010, 03:50 PM
I would never wish anyone ill....

That happens to be a lie:


...and when that happens, I surely hope your loved one doesn't suffer.

But I hope and pray that YOU do.

Kaa

ccmanuals
08-02-2010, 04:08 PM
Well let me clear this up for you boys...It is not my duty and obligation to see to the wants and needs of your family. It is your duty.

And I don't appreciate having things taken from my family to be given to your family. You need to learn how to take care of your own family.

And quit expecting everyone else to pick up the slack..

What is mine is mine, and it is my decision as to what and how much and even to who if anyone I give to.It is my decision, not yours. You not only expect but

demand that I am required to give. That isn't giving, it is taking..Who are you to think you have the right to take so freely.

Read what you said above then tell us how cold and heartless liberals are.

B_B
08-02-2010, 04:15 PM
Opie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNT-2tBqRwQ&feature=related) has (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD29zBkBu7w&NR=1) something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ksoze_Vgk&NR=1) to teach RonW
b.t.w. RonW nice trolling. You're having a laugh. Well done.

Pugwash
08-02-2010, 04:41 PM
I wish Ron was just a troll, but I have a funny feeling he's not. He has more than once come out with some very bizarre, incoherent, statements which the only consistency is the complete lack of thought behind them.

However, on this occasion I more than happy to go along with his beliefs but only on the condition that he doesn't use any of our roads, electrical grid, internet, military, emergency services, education or mail.

I think that's only fair.

Glen Longino
08-02-2010, 05:10 PM
Opie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNT-2tBqRwQ&feature=related) has (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD29zBkBu7w&NR=1) something (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4ksoze_Vgk&NR=1) to teach RonW
b.t.w. RonW nice trolling. You're having a laugh. Well done.

Yep!
I suspect Ron is simply over-stating his case, throwing handfuls of crap against the wall to see if any of it sticks.
If the truth were known, Ron would likely run in front of a truck to save a wandering toddler, just like most of us "socialists" would.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
08-02-2010, 06:46 PM
I don't participate in the bilge as often as I used to... been here quite a while, and I am still amazed at how often this debate comes up. The facts about US healthcare are not in doubt here:

Highest spending per capita (this is because of research and development doncha know)

25-40 million people without healthcare (the number gets argued about as if 25 million is okay)

37th ranking by the WHO (who are often called out as know nothings.)

Most of the global posters here don't even understand why Americans would defend the system. It sucks. The United States has every opportunity possible to have the best health care system in the world, simply by integrating the best practices from around the world. So does Canada, but we don't.... however, we at least see the societal benefit of having everyone health insured. Hey, I still don't know why the debate is on, but ...

Peter Malcolm Jardine
08-02-2010, 07:00 PM
Well at least you're honest :D

nw_noob
08-02-2010, 07:24 PM
Ron, just out of curiosity, do you think that keeping public education available for all the children in the country is a good use of government?

nw_noob
08-02-2010, 08:00 PM
I agree with much of what you said, and I do believe a basic level of education is a good thing to offer freely to all, I also agree that we could probably do a much better job of it than we currently are.

I asked the question because it's one of the inconsistency's I see in the health care debate. People generally agree that healthy, functioning brains are valuable to society as a whole, so we all chip in to make schooling available to everyone, and those with greater means can opt to pay for a better education. Now the health of the body's that carry the brains around all day, well that doesn't work the same way for some reason.

Oh, I'll just add that I'm not a fan of the health care bill that was passed, and I'm one of the many uninsured Americans at the moment.

downthecreek
08-03-2010, 03:29 AM
....while many Americans travel to Mexico and the Far East for surgeries because they're overwhwelmingly cheaper there, while the ones who can't travel do without. Google 'medical tourism'.

As a matter of interest, London is full of private clinics where wealthy foreigners come to receive top quality health care. The doctors who practice in them are almost always working in the NHS as well. Different countries tend to specialise in different things. India is rapidly becoming an international centre for some conditions as well. People go to the US for very high tech medicine and for rare conditions that are simply not seen, except very occasionally, in smaller populations. What interests me is the kind of health care that is relevant to the vast majority of the population.

On Ron's last flings at me......

We are in dire financial straits just now and all kinds of radical plans are being postulated in every area of public expenditure. The newspapers are, of course, feasting upon them. What will actually happen is another matter. The Telegraph particularly loves to feast on the NHS, which the high Tories have always hated. :d

Of course, if you are worried about access to elective surgery, there is nothing to stop you from taking out insurance for that purpose. The cost will be a tiny fraction of what you would pay in the US. Even comprehensive insurance would typically cost perhaps 10% of the American equivalent.

Fatuous. Ron - I can't help wondering if you know what the word means.:d

Blinders. Ron - We call them blinkers over here. Quite comical, given my rather
extensive knowledge of the NHS and your rather profound ignorance. :d

You think the NHS is under threat? You want me to defend it? Now how shall I do that?

I know. I'll post a series of links and articles and statistics demonstrating the very worst failures and problems of American health care. Won't be difficult - there's plenty of material. That's the logical way to do it, isn't it?

No? Hmmmmm..........:rolleyes:

purri
08-03-2010, 05:47 AM
I think that Ron posits that every American has the innate "god and constitutionally given' right to die in the most distressing circumstances.

Keith Wilson
08-03-2010, 06:57 AM
This would be a good time to mention relative costs. The UK spends about 8.5% of GDP on heath care. The US spends about twice that. While there are some areas in which the US gets better results, and some in which we get worse, by most broad measures we don't do any better than other countries. And in the UK, everybody is covered, all the time. If you want to quit your job and start a business, insurance for your family is simply not a concern.

http://flipchartfairytales.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/health-gdp.jpg

TomF
08-03-2010, 09:52 AM
Ron,

If you're not interested in funding someone else's health care ... and think they ought not to be funding yours either ... are we safe to assume that you do not have insurance?

downthecreek
08-03-2010, 11:06 AM
Hey - upthecreekwithoutapaddle..you have said it all and summed the thread up very well when you told the truth of the matter....



There you go, all the do good and bleeding heart sympathy ends up in one statement as to how much compassion can actually be given.
Right back to basic economics..What can and what can't we afford.

Pity you have to resort to childish name calling. It really doesn't impress.

Ever thought about what we choose to afford, or how we choose to spend what we choose to afford? Is America a third world country. Sometimes looks like it, despite your immense wealth.

Are you capable of rational thought, I wonder, or are name calling and meaningless drivel (such as your "ten times better" comment) the most of which you are capable?