ExAFO 0 #26 April 4, 2007 QuoteQuoteBurkina Faso has had no Astronaut casualties...so they've got that going for them...which is good... Quantus, I have to fly on Quantus. After Wapner. Before Squeak thumps you: QANTAS Queensland And Northern Territory Air ServiceIllinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #27 April 4, 2007 QuoteBefore Squeak thumps you: QANTAS Queensland And Northern Territory Air Service you guys are all the same - if you can't debate the topic, you always attack the poster and pick on his spelling Nixon did it first ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #28 April 4, 2007 QuoteQuoteFrance, with universal health care, (socialism) is ranked #1 health care system by the World Health Organization. The USA, who spends more then anyone, is #37. That is one country I will never care to be compared to. You can have the attitude, taxes and all the other bs they have right along with the WHO rated health care systme You forgot about the hot chicks, superb wine, long holidays on the Riviera, and climbing in Chamonix and the Verdon gorge. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #29 April 4, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteFrance, with universal health care, (socialism) is ranked #1 health care system by the World Health Organization. The USA, who spends more then anyone, is #37. That is one country I will never care to be compared to. You can have the attitude, taxes and all the other bs they have right along with the WHO rated health care systme You forgot about the hot chicks, superb wine, long holidays on the Riviera, and climbing in Chamonix and the Verdon gorge. And the Maginot Line. Don't forget that.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #30 April 4, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteFrance, with universal health care, (socialism) is ranked #1 health care system by the World Health Organization. The USA, who spends more then anyone, is #37. That is one country I will never care to be compared to. You can have the attitude, taxes and all the other bs they have right along with the WHO rated health care systme You forgot about the hot chicks, superb wine, long holidays on the Riviera, and climbing in Chamonix and the Verdon gorge. Well, most everything can have a good side!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #31 April 4, 2007 QuoteFrance, with universal health care, (socialism) is ranked #1 health care system by the World Health Organization. The USA, who spends more then anyone, is #37. Excellent! The first post in the thread of the type for which I was hoping. Yes, that means you owe , dammit. When people rank things, they do so using their own subjective values - what the study sees as important. The study that you implicitly cited was a WHO study from 2000 - it listed France as having the "best health care." The term "best" if puffery - an unverifiable subjective statement, i.e., "This is the best car on the lot." They chose "best" as the one that "best" combined: 1) Population health; 2) How "effectively" the government spends money on health; 3) How "well" the public health system prevents illness versus just treating illness; and 4) How "fairly" the public health system treats minorities, poor and special populations. The USA ranked 37 in that study. The Italians were No. 2. Canada was 30! Finland was 31! Britain was 18. You've got Canada and Finland lagging way behind Spain in healthcare. What? Huh? The values that were used are seen in Chapter 5, which has a portion that states, QuoteThe purpose of health financing is to make funding available, as well as to set the right financial incentives for providers, to ensure that all individuals have access to effective public health and personal health care. This means reducing or eliminating the possibility that an individual will be unable to pay for such care, or will be impoverished as a result of trying to do so. Part of the report focuses on spreading the risk and subsidizing the poor - they state that pooling of equal payments among all covered persons is not equitable, since the system would allows "the low-risk poor to subsidize the high-risk rich." It criticizes out-of-pocketspending because of the exposure to risk. Chapter 6 of the report starts by saying QuoteGovernments should be the “stewards” of their national resources, maintaining and improving them for the benefit of their populations. In health, this means being ultimately responsible for the careful management of their citizens’ wellbeing. Stewardship in health is the very essence of good government. Thus, it is seen what this study sought to do: Rate governments by how well they accomplish socialized medicine. The final Chapter describes how governments should be stewards to health care. So, what the WHO report does is promote the values it sees as most important - which appear to be access and quality. Inherently, the report derides private health care, private insurers, etc., and espouses socialism. From an objective sense, it is not a problem. But it seeks to use science, statistics, etc., to get at the core of a fundamentally political issue. My subjective values are greatly at odds with a number of the report's recommendations. Of some importance to me in temrs of how the US performed on the evaluation, the US, as you said, spent the most per capita on health. Number 1. The US also rankjed No. 1 in "Level Responsiveness" - where people were asked to "evaluate the performance of their health system regarding seven elements of responsiveness: dignity, autonomy and confidentiality (jointly termed respect of persons); and prompt attention, quality of basic amenities, access to social support networks during care and choice of care provider (encompassed by the term client orientation)." The United States ranked No. 1 in this category. When factored, the United States is tied for 3rd place with 36 other countries - basically, it seems like people in the US like their healthcare system more than anyone else, and it apparently is outranked in its fairness by only United Arab Emirates and Bulgaria. Where the US fails is being ranked 54 in "fairness of financial contribution" and on "Performance of Health Level" - which ranked the US as No. 72. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_annex_en.pdf My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #32 April 4, 2007 QuoteHealth care has these three goals in mind: 1) Quality; 2) Affordability; and 3) Accessibility. How do you define quality in a health care setting and then quantify it in any way? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #33 April 4, 2007 >How do you define quality in a health care setting and then quantify it in any way? You can use hard objective numbers, like average lifespan and infant mortality. But that also doesn't put the US very high on the list, so that's generally dismissed as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #34 April 4, 2007 Nor are those completely driven by quality of health care either. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #35 April 4, 2007 Quote>How do you define quality in a health care setting and then quantify it in any way? You can use hard objective numbers, like average lifespan and infant mortality. But that also doesn't put the US very high on the list, so that's generally dismissed as well. I find it exceptionally difficult. The problem is the number of variables associated with it. Some people look at "quality" healthcare as being based primarily in prevention of illness - "health maintenance." But then we have people who hate HMO's. People look to Canada as an example of high quality health care, which it is. But, then the naysayers point to the lack of MRI's, etc., and the long waits to use them that drive many of its citizens to go to the US for private pay MRI's. In Canada, it seems, healthcare is of high quality when you can get it. It's just the waiting period that can be the difference between quality intervention and quality end-of-life care. All of my variables are subjective to a great extent. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #36 April 4, 2007 >The problem is the number of variables associated with it. Well, the number of variables and their subjectivity. "Quality of life" is a tough one. You can easily define the extremes, but it's harder to define at the center. Does someone who loses their legs to gangrene but are in a good facility have a higher quality of life than someone who is in constant moderate pain, but can still get around? About the only way you can get around that is to use objective numbers, but as I mentioned they are not popular. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #37 April 4, 2007 > If you cannot pay, then you have very limited access and it's expensive. I disagree, illegals have easy access to expensive health care with little or no money required. They just have to wait 8-10 hours in an ER room to get it. Those with very expensive health care plans have to wait 8-10 hours in the same ER to see a doctor, been there and done that twice in the last three month. On the up side, I was able to pickup some spanish lessons while I waited. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #38 April 4, 2007 QuoteAbout the only way you can get around that is to use objective numbers, but as I mentioned they are not popular. Truth rarely is. I mean, in that WHO report, I remember the shock at the results of their analysis that showed Finland ranked 30. Most people expected Canada or one of the Scandinavian countries to rank at the top - not France and Italy to be 1-2. The best that can be done is put numbers out there and allow the policy-makers to decide what to make of them. And there you would find disagreement. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CanuckInUSA 0 #39 April 4, 2007 QuoteMost people expected Canada or one of the Scandinavian countries to rank at the top Canada's healthcare system is a joke. Try not to worry about the things you have no control over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Squeak 17 #40 April 4, 2007 QuoteNone of the above. Put a Fed department in charge or control of this and there will be no quality, the price will skyrocket, and what is left will be damed near impossible to get. So, to follow your questions, I find any combination, if gov run, to be so abhorrent I could not support any of them. Edited to add, Of course I am assuming that this system would be gov. run Well you be wrong, the system of health care in australia is government run and it is outstanding. We also have private health care system which is optional. the only down side to our system is the wait list for some "elective" procedures. But all emergency medical care is "free" we do pay a medicare levi as a tax though. Move to OZ great health care system, loads of sunshine and not many YanksYou are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky) My Life ROCKS! How's yours doing? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #41 April 4, 2007 QuoteFrance, with universal health care, (socialism) is ranked #1 health care system by the World Health Organization. This is possible. The question is, do you want to pay 60% of your income to government?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #42 April 4, 2007 QuoteYou forgot about the hot chicks, superb wine, long holidays on the Riviera, and climbing in Chamonix and the Verdon gorge. You alos forgot about the GARLIC BREATH! The Fat Cheeses, the GARLIC BREATH, The Thin Prostitutes, The GARLIC BREATH, the Sweet Pastries, The GARLIC BREATH, and The Sour Wines (only one of which may be considered good!). Also, they eat horses! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
spudboy 0 #43 April 4, 2007 how much do you pay in the form of a medicare levi? Is it something you pay for each time you get care, or is it more of monthly premium? Also is the cost the same for everyone or is it based on a % of your income Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #44 April 5, 2007 If I were really anal, I'd go through and link all the posts in which I've droned on and on about some of the reasons that our infant mortality is higher than many other countries....about social issues in the US that affects our overall health, but doesn't necessarily speak to the quality of our health care in the narrower terms in which it gets tossed about. There's a lot of bias in those statistics. Meanwhile, we DO need to see what others do that might make our system better if we were to replicate their practices. But putting new programs in place because it's done in France still doesn't address our crack cocaine problem, or the issues in poor rural areas in the US that are distinctly different from the issues in poor rural areas in France. Do they have those???? Our social issues run far deeper than what can be reasonably fixed by our healthcare system....though healthcare is a convenient target.-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #45 April 5, 2007 QuoteQuoteMost people expected Canada or one of the Scandinavian countries to rank at the top Canada's healthcare system is a joke. Some may consider what you posted to be heresy! My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #46 April 5, 2007 QuoteQuoteFrance, with universal health care, (socialism) is ranked #1 health care system by the World Health Organization. This is possible. The question is, do you want to pay 60% of your income to government? If you count what I pay yearly for health care coverage + taxes, it is close to that now anyway. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DZJ 0 #47 April 5, 2007 Re: your poll, what's your definition of accessible? And accessible to whom? A system that is high quality, 'accessible' but (very) expensive is, in reality, only going to be accessible to a (very) small minority of people. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #48 April 5, 2007 I like market forces, and giving people the choice. I certainly would not choose for myself unlimited access to the highest quality of care. I wouldn't want to pay for it. Sounds good, but so does eating only tofu and other ridiculously bad tasting healthy foods if you are only concerned about having the ultimate health status. People who say they, and the rest of us should make whatever sacrifices are necessary to have the best health care system possible, regardless of cost, ought first to PUT DOWN THE HAMBURGER & FRIES! Hypocrites." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #49 April 5, 2007 QuoteNone of the above. Put a Fed department in charge or control of this and there will be no quality, the price will skyrocket, and what is left will be damed near impossible to get. So, to follow your questions, I find any combination, if gov run, to be so abhorrent I could not support any of them. Edited to add, Of course I am assuming that this system would be gov. run I'm always amused by the arguements for a government run single-payer system. A certain goofball senator that was killed in a plane crash kept saying there was not enough competition (3 large carrieers in MN), but out of the other side of his mouth advocated a single-payer govt run plan. Which amounts to saying 3 carriers is not enough competition, but 1 is just right. Anybody who thinks our politicians are capable of creating a solution to the rising cost of health care is naive. It is quite the reverse, they are responsible for the mess that it is, and they will make it much worse before they finally break it totally." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #50 April 5, 2007 QuoteFrance, with universal health care, (socialism) is ranked #1 health care system by the World Health Organization. The USA, who spends more then anyone, is #37. Got a link for that? I'd like to see their criteria." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
