How to control healthcare costs in the United States

[lawrocket 3]

I've been on vacation for a week. A good time and relaxing. What do I do to relax? I think abotu shit like how to control the costs of healthcare in the United States.

In doing so, I identified some things that make American Healthcare more expensive than healthcare in other countries. The key difference is the diversity of the American population.

---

People mention other systems of healthcare as examples why American healthcare is bad. Look at European or Japanese lifestyles. They smoke like chimneys. They drink and have sex. Just like Americans.

The difference? Japanese people are, well, Japanese. Feench are white Frenchmen. When you have countries of such a huge majority of one race and culture, you get the same freaking dieases!

White folks, like me, tend to kick the bucket from heart disease and cancer at higher rates than Native Americans, Hispanics or Asians. We've got lots of white guys in America. And in France and Britaini, where healthcare can be directed toward these things! SMoke like a chimney? The healthcare systme is set up to handle heart disease and such things.

Ah, but Latinos die more than whites from liver disease and diabetes and infectious disease. And Native Americans tends to suffer from liver disease and diabetes and tuberculosis. Asians get things like strokes. Blacks tend to suffer from heart disease at a much greater rate than whites.

So, What other country has to deal with ldiseases that occur in a number of different races and cultures? Any takers? The French and Japanese don't deal with it (though check out how the immigration policies in Europe will bear out with healthcare in the next 10 to 20 years). It's EASY to treat a population when everyone is siffering from the same thing.

So, step one to lowring healthcare costs - close the borders and stop multiculturalism. One culture will result in more unifrmoty of medical problems, thus making the system more efficient.

---

Another thing? Make all diseases associated with lifestyle uncovered. That is, if three physicians would e willing to testify that to a reasonable degree of medical probability, John Doe's gangrene was proximately caused by uncontrloled diabetes do to behavior against medical advice? Fuck him. He could have preneted it, his ass should pay for it.

Got HIV? Short of pediatric or some form of contamination (i.e. transfusions), we all know how to prevent it. You didn't listen. Fuck you. Got lung cancer from smoking? It's your fault, so you handle it. Melanoma? Wear sunscreen. YOU bear the risks of your behavior. Why should be cover your ass when you couldn't even even cover your pecker?

---

THe next problem is end-of-life care. "You know, Mrs. Doe, your grandmother is in multi-organ system failure secondary to sepsis from a UTI. We can either let her go peacefully or we can pump her full of antibiotics, vasopressors, and full medical intervention of all issues." Mrs. Doe - who hasn't seen her grandmother in 3 years and has recently shipped her off to "assisted living" tells the doctor, "Do all you can."

Some studies have suggested that 60 percent of th emoney people will spend on medical care is, on average,p spent in the last 3 weeks of life. So, something must be done to lessen the expense of those who provide no further "societal" benefit and are merely circling the drain on the road to a dirt nap.

Solutions? First, make assisted living facilities illegal. This is where people put their parents/grandparents when they don't want to deal with them anymore. They become somebody else's problem.

I, for one, will instruct my kids that they will never, ever put me in one. Leave me alone to die of sepsis and bedsores in a pile of my own excrement. It'll be quicker, more painless and much less expensive. I've already got a power of attorney with a DNR and orders to simply palliate me into death. My idea of hell is, "Could you change my bag for me? Actually, my catheter needs changing, too."

Thus, another law must be passed banning the use of extraordinary measures for a senior citizen unless specifically in writing with notarization by the person that he/she would want to be rescucitated and kept alive by any and all means. Actually, freakin have this a law for anyone - a notarized signature on an official form document by the person that says, "I wish to use all measures to keep me alive, even if deemed vegetative, etc."

Another way to limit the cost? As much as it pains me, orfder drug company dislosure of all studies performed - positive and negative. If a drug company has done 13 studies of a new drug, reveall the results of all of them, not just the two that look good. Or, have the FDA perform all studies. And increase the salaries of NIH personnel.

---

In a sense, a inexpensive health care system would e a cold, hearltess system for anyone who is not providing any further societal benefit.

But if society is going to be covering it, society ifs going to get the benefit. We've got a heart, and must choose betweenthe 65 year old retiree and the 25 year old worker? It goes to the worker.

Affordable healthcare means making choices. People have asked how to make healthcare affordable. I've always said I have no solution.

Well, now I have some solutions. To me, these solutions ain't worth ir. "We won't treat sickle-cell. It's too expensive" is, to me, the wrong answer. But it's what we'll get when we go governmental.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

Good stuff, but you've missed one underlying issue: insurance.

The whole thing needs to be redone. Malpractice insurance needs real reform, and consumers need to look at paying cash for their routine visits. That would remove the majority of the administrative BS that a doctor has to endure. I've seen one doctor have as many as 4 assistants just to manage the paper work.

Pay cash? Not only might the doctor give you a steep discount, but you just made yourself one of the lowest maintenance patients administratively.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[sv3n 0]

You're kidding, right?

Step 1: Let's just say that you are statistically right and the race thing is why healthcare is so expensive. Closing the border will have no affect on that........it would take thousands of years of "breeding" to make it one race. Afterall this country was founded by immigrants and it's not like they're creating new races with new health problems by crossing the border....it's the same health problems that already exist.

Step 2: Making diseases or treatment associated with lifestyle and life-choices uncovered is just stupid.......you're shooting yourself in the foot to begin with. That leads right into well you chose to skydive, hunt, scuba dive, skateboard, drive a car.....it was not necessary and you got injured, therefore it's not covered.

Step 3: End of life care..........."sorry mam, this is where your coverage ends we have to pull the plug", nice dude. Why don't we just off people at 72 by hurling them off of a cliff. This is a private choice and a rather important one..........the last days or weeks in someone's life shouldn't be "go f**k yourself". There's certain things that people need to stay in nursing homes for, just like there's certain things infants need to stay in the hospital for. And who exactly are you to judge whether a 6 year-old can see their grandparent for another week. If you don't want to get resucitated, that's fine........but it's no excuse to push your choice on everybody else. That's the thing about this free society thing, you make your choice. Just like that DNR form you got, you made that choice.


Here's an idea...........equal healthcare for everyone, no pre-existing condition BS, no we don't cover that. You walk into the doctor's office, slide your u.s.a. medical card through the scanner and that's it.

Here's how it would work.

First, we pay more than enough taxes for it. In 2005 we spent 43% of our budget (some reports claim up to 51%) on the military, we're number one on the list....look at the pic. We could, notice I said could, get some money there. A lot of money disappears there to nowhere....but that's another issue.

Second, by getting rid of the insurance companies you eliminate price inflation. But you're not eliminating jobs because the government would still need the staffing to deal with paperwork. Doctors know they're going to get paid regardless, therefore they wont need all the extra staff for paperwork and the government can create a price list for procedures...no price gouging that way.

Third, restrict malpractice lawsuits to reasonable limits. Since people are covered regardless, the healthcare will not be an issue in the lawsuits....it's just "emotional grief" that they would be suing for or lost wages in the case of a death.


There's a lot of benefits to this, some people don't have the money and other fall on hard times. As a society we should be working towards betterment for everybody and not just ourselves. We spend more than any other country on this planet on healthcare and we are ranked #37 out of the rest of the world. That means it doesn't need to be more expensive, it just means that somebody has to come up with a plan and do something.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[rushmc 23]

I think you are kidding right?

Nationalized health care would not be as good as we have today. You can not come up with one example where a gov runs something better than the private sector. Canada, the UK and many others are not as good as we have today.

The uninsured number have been proven to be exagerated for many reasons so throwing them out makes no difference.

Want health care costs to go down? Reform the law system. Simple.

As for a USA health card. I hope you and I never ever see that. You think health care is expensive today? Just let the gov run it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Richards 0]

Quote

Nationalized health care would not be as good as we have today. You can not come up with one example where a gov runs something better than the private sector. Canada, the UK and many others are not as good as we have today.

State run health care can work if it is not politicised. The problem we have in Canada is not that the idea of state run health care beig flawed so much as the implementation. For example, we have had lobby groups scream that it is a persons "right" to have a sex change operation covered by health care, and the government relented (despite the fact that we are running short of funds for life saving treatments). OHIP at one point covered tattoo removal, breast implants...etc.

If you can keep the special interest groups out of it and ensure that it is directed to priorities such as saving life, making broken people fit to go back to work, diminishing physical pain, and making the end of a persons life as comfortable as possible (but not needlessly extending a dying persons life just for the purpose of having a pulse). This would go a long way towards saving the system. People who wish to be covered for the exotics (cosmetic, unconventional treatments) can get extra private insurance.

Also have people actually pay a user fee. I went to a walk in clinic (a prescribed follow up on a workplace concussion), and in the waiting room I heard people telling the nurse that they were there because they had headaches, blisters, colds, stiff muscles from working out...etc.I wanted to shoot these idiots because the doctor would tell them the same thing I could have told them, yet billed health care for more dollars that could be put towards real problems. Most insurance policies require you to pay a deductible, so should health care. If you had to fork over $20-30 dollars for a visit, you would be more inclined to ask yourself if the trip was really neccessary.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Nationalized health care would not be as good as we have today. You can not come up with one example where a gov runs something better than the private sector. Canada, the UK and many others are not as good as we have today.

State run health care can work if it is not politicised. The problem we have in Canada is not that the idea of state run health care beig flawed so much as the implementation. For example, we have had lobby groups scream that it is a persons "right" to have a sex change operation covered by health care, and the government relented (despite the fact that we are running short of funds for life saving treatments). OHIP at one point covered tattoo removal, breast implants...etc.

If you can keep the special interest groups out of it and ensure that it is directed to priorities such as saving life, making broken people fit to go back to work, diminishing physical pain, and making the end of a persons life as comfortable as possible (but not needlessly extending a dying persons life just for the purpose of having a pulse). This would go a long way towards saving the system. People who wish to be covered for the exotics (cosmetic, unconventional treatments) can get extra private insurance.

Also have people actually pay a user fee. I went to a walk in clinic (a prescribed follow up on a workplace concussion), and in the waiting room I heard people telling the nurse that they were there because they had headaches, blisters, colds, stiff muscles from working out...etc.I wanted to shoot these idiots because the doctor would tell them the same thing I could have told them, yet billed health care for more dollars that could be put towards real problems. Most insurance policies require you to pay a deductible, so should health care. If you had to fork over $20-30 dollars for a visit, you would be more inclined to ask yourself if the trip was really neccessary.

To your early comments I agree to a point. In any case where government runs something it will be political. That can not be changed. Groups, lobbies and special interest will alway try to get more and more of other peoples money for what THEY want.

Not much different than trying to fix the tort system here. Why? Who is running most of congress?

Also, look what SS and medicare was supposed to be here. Look what it has become. The best dam vote buying programs there are

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sv3n 0]

No, not at all...........you gotta quit smoking that crack that they're handing out at the right wing conventions. "Yeah, no government healthcare....we want big corporations to make millions off of people by pushing them around and denying claims just to see if they'll fight them....YEAH! Woohoo, let em suffer!!"

France........rank number 1 in the world for health care, it's not private healthcare.....government health care. Remember, we're ranked number 37 and we have private healthcare........obviously the private sector isn't doing that good. And on top of that our healthcare costs are higher than anywhere else in the world. That says a lot.

Let's say the uninsured number is inflated....what's your source on that? t's not only about being not insured, it's also about being under-insured. My work gives me insurance, but it's a joke. Everything I go to the doctor for I get a form in the mail two weeks later and have to send it in (the same form because they keep losing them) several times and then it takes them a couple of weeks to re-evaluate it and then approve. It's BS, there's no reason for it......they're hoping that you forget or just give up so they don't have to pay out.

I agree with you that the law system needs a reform, but don't be naive and think that the reform will bring down healthcare costs......it'll be just another way for the companies to increase their bottom line..............less or lower lawsuits means more money in their pockets.

I really do hope we start thinking about everyone, healthcare shouldn't be a priviledge. You're messing with people's lives. Are you kidding me, if they're paying out they're going to pay out as little as possible.

Quote

I think you are kidding right?

Nationalized health care would not be as good as we have today. You can not come up with one example where a gov runs something better than the private sector. Canada, the UK and many others are not as good as we have today.

The uninsured number have been proven to be exagerated for many reasons so throwing them out makes no difference.

Want health care costs to go down? Reform the law system. Simple.

As for a USA health card. I hope you and I never ever see that. You think health care is expensive today? Just let the gov run it

...and you're in violation of your face!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

No, not at all...........you gotta quit smoking that crack that they're handing out at the right wing conventions. "Yeah, no government healthcare....we want big corporations to make millions off of people by pushing them around and denying claims just to see if they'll fight them....YEAH! Woohoo, let em suffer!!"

France........rank number 1 link pleasein the world for health care, it's not private healthcare.....government health care. Remember, we're ranked number 37 and we have private healthcare........obviously the private sector isn't doing that good. And on top of that our healthcare costs are higher than anywhere else in the world. That says a lot.depends and how the ranking is done.

Let's say the uninsured number is inflated....what's your source on that? I will find it but it has a lot to do with those moving health care, those not yet wanting it (the young) and those that will never have it because they do not work. (and yet if they go to a ER they get help)s not only about being not insured, it's also about being under-insured. My work gives me insurance, but it's a joke. Everything I go to the doctor for I get a form in the mail two weeks later and have to send it in (the same form because they keep losing them) several times and then it takes them a couple of weeks to re-evaluate it and then approve. It's BS, there's no reason for it......they're hoping that you forget or just give up so they don't have to pay out.

I agree with you that the law system needs a reform, but don't be naive and think that the reform will bring down healthcare costs......it'll be just another way for the companies to increase their bottom line..............less or lower lawsuits means more money in their pockets.You and I part company here. Companies that are in competition are not naturally evil

I really do hope we start thinking about everyone, healthcare shouldn't be a priviledge. You're messing with people's lives. I am not messing with any ones lives. you are the one wanting to create a huge new tax on those that work and redistribute that money to those that do not Are you kidding me, if they're paying out they're going to pay out as little as possible.

Quote

I think you are kidding right?

Nationalized health care would not be as good as we have today. You can not come up with one example where a gov runs something better than the private sector. Canada, the UK and many others are not as good as we have today.

The uninsured number have been proven to be exagerated for many reasons so throwing them out makes no difference.

Want health care costs to go down? Reform the law system. Simple.

As for a USA health card. I hope you and I never ever see that. You think health care is expensive today? Just let the gov run it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[penniless 0]

Quote

France........rank number 1 link pleasein the world for health care, it's not private healthcare.....government health care. Remember, we're ranked number 37 and we have private healthcare........obviously the private sector isn't doing that good. And on top of that our healthcare costs are higher than anywhere else in the world. That says a lot.depends and how the ranking is done.

From Business Week last month:
France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.

That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.

To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member.

Americans who think America is always #1 in everything are just kidding themselves.

[sv3n 0]

Thanks....that saved me a search for that one.

A couple of things to point out here.....

We're one of the richest countries in the world, we spend more than anybody else on this planet on healthcare, but we are only ranked number 37. That means it's not a money issue, it's an issue of leadership and somebody get off of their lazy ass and start doing something about it. Through good leadership this could easily be done....come on now, we can do better than 37th!

Quote

Quote

France........rank number 1 link pleasein the world for health care, it's not private healthcare.....government health care. Remember, we're ranked number 37 and we have private healthcare........obviously the private sector isn't doing that good. And on top of that our healthcare costs are higher than anywhere else in the world. That says a lot.depends and how the ranking is done.

From Business Week last month:
France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.

That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.

To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member.

Americans who think America is always #1 in everything are just kidding themselves.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

France........rank number 1 link pleasein the world for health care, it's not private healthcare.....government health care. Remember, we're ranked number 37 and we have private healthcare........obviously the private sector isn't doing that good. And on top of that our healthcare costs are higher than anywhere else in the world. That says a lot.depends and how the ranking is done.

From Business Week last month:
France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.

That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.

To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member.

Americans who think America is always #1 in everything are just kidding themselves.

Once I read Cuba came in ahead of the US I stopped. No credibility here.

Sorry

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

Good stuff, but you've missed one underlying issue: insurance poverty.

T,FTFY

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[1969912 0]

Quote

Once I read Cuba came in ahead of the US I stopped. No credibility here.

Sorry

I'm still waiting for them to say something about how the rankings were done. I think you asked earlier.

They also never gave you a link to the rankings. The "recent World Health Organization health-care ranking" that was mentioned in the quoted Business Week report was done in 2000. Here it is:

http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2000/en/whr00_annex_en.pdf

After reading it, you will realize just how horrible and meaningful the #37 ranking is, and immediately start campaigning for socialized health care

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Once I read Cuba came in ahead of the US I stopped. No credibility here.

Sorry

I'm still waiting for them to say something about how the rankings were done. I think you asked earlier.

They also never gave you a link to the rankings. The "recent World Health Organization health-care ranking" that was mentioned in the quoted Business Week report was done in 2000. Here it is:

http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2000/en/whr00_annex_en.pdf

After reading it, you will realize just how horrible and meaningful the #37 ranking is, and immediately start campaigning for socialized health care

A Moore movie said the same. A few reports tore his movie to shreds but like you, I will wait and see if the criteria for the rankings will be provided

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Royd 0]

Quote

some people don't have the money and other fall on hard times. As a society we should be working towards betterment for everybody and not just ourselves.

I keep seeing some meat at the store selling for $10 a lb. but I end up buying those pork neck bones for $2 a lb. I sure would like to try some of that $10 meat. Could you send me some money, please?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Once I read Cuba came in ahead of the US I stopped. No credibility here.

Sorry

Since it said "while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba", I venture to suggest that it's your READING skills that have no credibility.

You have a bad habit of refusing to read anything that disagrees with your pre-conceptions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Once I read Cuba came in ahead of the US I stopped. No credibility here.

Sorry

Since it said "while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba", I venture to suggest that it's your READING skills that have no credibility.

You have a bad habit of refusing to read anything that disagrees with your pre-conceptions.

No, I have a "habit" ( as you call it) of seeing bull shit and knowing when to stop. A skill you should aquire ('before" you post)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Once I read Cuba came in ahead of the US I stopped. No credibility here.

Sorry

Since it said "while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba", I venture to suggest that it's your READING skills that have no credibility.

You have a bad habit of refusing to read anything that disagrees with your pre-conceptions.

Oh, and "cherry picking" to post out of context is a skill you do have and should loose

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

France........rank number 1 in the world for health care, it's not private healthcare.....government health care. Remember, we're ranked number 37 and we have private healthcare........obviously the private sector isn't doing that good.

Have you read that study? I have. It's actually pretty interesting.

But here's the gist, which I'll paste from another post of mine:
***
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,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The 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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Governments 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/...n/whr00_annex_en.pdf

So if you want a healthcare system that values 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, then the US is a shining beacon.

Commies don't value things like automony, dignity, etc., of anyone but themselves (ever notice that communists and socialists set different benefits for themselves than for the peasants?) Thus, the US is clearly worst for them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

In 2005 we spent 43% of our budget (some reports claim up to 51%) on the military, we're number one on the list....look at the pic. We could, notice I said could, get some money there. A lot of money disappears there to nowhere....but that's another issue.

Yes, it disappears into socialism. The US Military Budget for 2007 is almost $505 billion, down by over $5 billion from the 2006 Budget of a little over $512 billion.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/...f/budget/defense.pdf

The US Health and Human Services Budget for 2007 is $697.95 billion, up from $639.66 billion in 2006. Of this, $627,315 billion is for mandatory outlays (Medicare $389.5 billion and Medicaid $204.69 billion). http://www.gpoaccess.gov/...7/pdf/budget/hhs.pdf

So, in weighing the amount of money the government spends on the military versus healthcare, we see that health care spending gets 136% of the money that the military gets.

Quote

Second, by getting rid of the insurance companies you eliminate price inflation. But you're not eliminating jobs because the government would still need the staffing to deal with paperwork. Doctors know they're going to get paid regardless, therefore they wont need all the extra staff for paperwork and the government can create a price list for procedures...no price gouging that way.

Um, are you sniffing something? Price inflation exists in areas that are uninsured. You've said that the staff would go into paperwork for the government, then say that the doctors won't need staff for all the paperwork. Huh??? That's a contradiction.

Quote

Third, restrict malpractice lawsuits to reasonable limits. Since people are covered regardless, the healthcare will not be an issue in the lawsuits....it's just "emotional grief" that they would be suing for or lost wages in the case of a death.

True. The doctor that paralyzed you can treat you for the rest of your life. You can get some pain and suffering, I guess. Gee, thanks for the government medical care.

Quote

As a society we should be working towards betterment for everybody and not just ourselves.

As a society you have to pick winners and losers. You may say it's for the betterment of everybody, but you KNOW you are choosing some to lose. What's good for me ain't good for everyone else. What's good for everyone else aint' necessarily good for you.

You know it. I know it. We all know i. Let's all show some integrity and call it what it is - a system for picking losers by caprice.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Have you read that study? I have. It's actually pretty interesting.

But here's the gist, which I'll paste from another post of mine:...

It sounds like you were reading the core chapters of the report. Have you read the Statistical Annexes section?

My intent was to read only the analytical stuff because my only interest was in how they did the rankings. Anyway, I just finished a quick study of the Statistical Annexes, which describe the statistical methods used in generating the inputs that determine the rankings. There is also a separate document that describes how the health-only input (what you called "Population health") to the ranking is determined. I can't say I fully understand the statistical stuff yet, but my general impression is very close to the impression you got from the core chapters. Now I will definitely read the chapters now.

I wonder how many of the people who run around touting the #37 ranking have even bothered to read the report?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Step 2: Making diseases or treatment associated with lifestyle and life-choices uncovered is just stupid.......you're shooting yourself in the foot to begin with. That leads right into well you chose to skydive, hunt, scuba dive, skateboard, drive a car.....it was not necessary and you got injured, therefore it's not covered.

That's good example. But look from the other side: the government-funded healthcare is paid by taxpayers. Why should those who do not do extreme sports (car accidents are different, obviously) pay for the healthcare costs for those who do?

Quote

Step 3: End of life care..........."sorry mam, this is where your coverage ends we have to pull the plug", nice dude. Why don't we just off people at 72 by hurling them off of a cliff. This is a private choice and a rather important one..........the last days or weeks in someone's life shouldn't be "go f**k yourself".

Again, this is a private choice, but should all the taxpayers pay for that private choice? Again, if someone wants a private choice - let them get an insurance.

Quote

And who exactly are you to judge whether a 6 year-old can see their grandparent for another week.

And another week, and another week, and it costs $100k a week...
It is really easy to judge if you consider the fact that the system has limited resources available. Therefore spending them on having that grandparent living for another week might mean that two children will die because of lack of resources.

Quote

If you don't want to get resucitated, that's fine........but it's no excuse to push your choice on everybody else. That's the thing about this free society thing, you make your choice. Just like that DNR form you got, you made that choice.

He is not pushing his choice on everybody else. He is saying that this private choice should not be funded by everyone else. If a person makes a choice - fine, but he has to pay for it. If they are willing to pay $100k a week for that from their own pocket, I have absolutely no objection. I just do not want to pay for their choice.

Quote

First, we pay more than enough taxes for it. In 2005 we spent 43% of our budget (some reports claim up to 51%) on the military, we're number one on the list....look at the pic.

Here we could probably stop. If you want to try to show that we have enough money to maintain government healthcare, prove it with appropriate numbers. The amount of money the budget spends on military has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Quote

We could, notice I said could, get some money there. A lot of money disappears there to nowhere....but that's another issue.

So your theory is already based on assumption, and not facts. Good start.

Quote

Second, by getting rid of the insurance companies you eliminate price inflation.

You will not. Price inflation exists in the countries with government health care as well.

Quote

There's a lot of benefits to this, some people don't have the money and other fall on hard times. As a society we should be working towards betterment for everybody and not just ourselves.

It is impossible. "Benefits for everyone" will then cover plastic surgery, boob jobs, sex change and so on. You really want to pay for all this?

Quote

We spend more than any other country on this planet on healthcare and we are ranked #37 out of the rest of the world. That means it doesn't need to be more expensive, it just means that somebody has to come up with a plan and do something.

Just a question: how often had you been treated in your life by any government healthcare facility outside US? Just to ensure that you know the stuff you are talking about.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Botellines 0]

Do you have any experience in Spain´s Helth System?

[1969912 0]

Quote

Where the US fails is being ranked 54 in "fairness of financial contribution"

It would be interesting to know how "fairness of financial contribution" was determined. Some critiques of the report claim that some tax burdens in socialized-medicine countries wer not considered in the "fairness" determination. In the Statistical Annex http://www.who.int/entity/whr/2000/en/whr00_annex_en.pdf there is a reference (ref. 28) to a document that details the "estimation" of fairness, but that (and two other documents related to "fairness') have been removed from the WHO database. They are the only pieces of documentation that I have been unable to locate. Until that documentation is made available for review, the WHO "fairness" ranking is meaningless and should be disregarded.

None of that implies that our HC system doesn't have problems, because it does. It shouldn't, however, be considered less "fair" than that of a socialized-medicine country based on undocumented data and/or analysis.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Good stuff, but you've missed one underlying issue: insurance poverty.

I think this is also a good point, if people are "poor" and can't afford health insurance what happens.....their kids and they themselves are forced not to go to the doctor. The miss important things like immunizations and basic checkups, that's harmful to the rest of the population. By making healthcare a right and not a priviledge this wouldn't be an issue. No child should be forced to suffer due to their parent's financial standing.

...and you're in violation of your face!