How to control healthcare costs in the United States

[Zep 0]

Quote

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

Si intimately, It's in the same state as every other NHS, On the verge of collapse.
If the assensores or ligeonella doesn't get you the misdiagnosing will.

Gone fishing

[1969912 0]

Quote

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.

If the issues that you mentioned earlier (ranked 37th, highest cost, mortality rates) were resolved somehow, whould the problem above be serious enough for you to desire a change to socialized health care?

Any idea how widespread the problem is? Are you certain that any children in the US miss either immunizations of basic health care because of financial problems?

"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

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.

You forgot some stuff, like the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons program, the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and “other items” (i.e. military spending by other agencies, foreign military financing and training, mandatory contributions to military retirement and healthcare). Here's the real numbers....

Year......$ of.....At 2007..Change from
...........Billions...Prices....Previous Year (%)
------------------------------------------
2008....643.9....643.9......2.84%
2007....626.1....626.1......7.46%
2006....571.6....582.66...-0.05%
2005....554.......582.93....0.34%
2004....534.......580.93....4.03%
2003....500.......558.42...27.97%
2002....382.......436.36.....8.00%
2001....348.......404.03.....4.82%
2000....323.......385.46.....0.81%
1999....310.......382.38.....4.95%
1998....289.......364.35..... n/a


Sources:
For data up to 2005, Chris Hellman, The Runaway Military Budget: An Analysis , Friends Committee on National Legislation, March 2006, no. 705, p. 3
For 2006, 41% of Your 2006 [US] Taxes go to War, Friends Committee on National Legislation, February 15, 2007
For 2007 and 2008, Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2007 Pentagon Spending Request and Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2008 Pentagon Spending Request, both from the Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation.

Notes:
1998-2006 includes Department of Defense spending, Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons program, the costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and “other items” (i.e. military spending by other agencies, foreign military financing and training, mandatory contributions to military retirement and healthcare).
2007 and 2008 do not include “other items.”
Congress has already approved over $500 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fiscal Year 2008’s budget request includes a supplemental $141.7 billion to cover Iraq and Afghanistan operations. 2007’s was $93.4 billion. (See Center for Arms Control and Non Proliferation source mentioned above.)
2007 constant prices calculated using Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Consumer Price Index Calculator

Quote

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.

Not really.....think of how weapons are purchased. The old military comfort "be glad in knowing that the equipment you are using to protect yourself is made by the lowest bidder". Or simply instate and government list of prices for each procedure that is updated yearly by a committee of doctors and budget officials. That would eliminate prie gouging.

Quote

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.

The sad thing is that these things do happen, but the doctor's do not generally do them on purpose.....that would be a criminal thing. You could still sue, but put some limitations on it. I think the malpractice lawsuits are going a little overboard.

Quote

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.

Is it better if everybody has good healthcare? Yes.

That would be one step forward for our society. It's not about choosing a loser or a winner. Some make more than other and some make lots and other make none. You can't just think about yourself, you have to think about the group.

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

[sv3n 0]

Quote

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

Why, cause you just can't believe it? Or you refuse to believe it. That's the point, we can do way better than this.

Let me give you some info on the organization that researched the report.

"WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends." -from their website

I don't think you can find a better source for evaluating healthcare, they deal with so many different healthcare systems that they're bound to see what works and what doesn't.

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

[sv3n 0]

Quote

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?

That's a big problem, if you're well off enough to have healthcare your whole life you don't think about what it would be like without it. This isn't about trying a better steak, this is dealing with peoples' lives....a lot of people can't afford to get treatment for things or their insurance company weasels out of it through legal loopholes or long court battles.


Here's a story you can read.....

Last Tuesday night, a man kissed his wife on the balcony of their apartment in Kansas City, Missouri. He then dropped her 75-pound body off the balcony. Criste Reimer, age 47, died on the pavement 4 floors below.

The following day saw Stanley Reimer, age 51, charged with second-degree murder. Reimer was scheduled to be arraigned in Jackson County, Missouri on Thursday.

The Kansas City Star reported on some of the circumstances surrounding Criste Reimer’s death:

[Police] say Reimer killed his wife because he no longer could afford the avalanche of medical bills from the treatment of her uterine cancer and neurological problems.

When police first questioned Reimer, who was in the apartment when they arrived, he told them “something bad” had happened to his wife, according to the probable-cause statement filed with the charges.

“She didn’t jump,” he said, but didn’t reveal much more…

Police questioned Stan Reimer for hours. Finally it seemed clear — the Reimers were in desperate financial straits when Stan kissed his wife one last time.

Criste’s many medical problems had become too much to bear. She couldn’t fight much longer, and the money had run out.

Aside from her history of hydrocephalus and neurofibromatosis, Criste Reimer had suffered through hypothyroidism, brain injury and knee surgeries.

A trip to the hospital in the Spring of 2006 indicated that Criste was suffering from the adult version of “failure to thrive.”

Multiple medical problems dictated multiple drugs, as well. The Reimers were dealing with bills of just under a thousand dollars a week, with no health insurance.

Stan Reimer had attempted to sell some property in Texas and rights to royalties from oil wells. In probate court records quoted by the KC Star, the following statement was found: “[There] are not sufficient cash funds in the estate to continue payment for the treatment and medication.”

Social Security benefits and oil royalties for Criste Reimer only added up to $725 a month.

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

[1969912 0]

Quote

Let me give you some info on the organization that researched the report.

"WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends." -from their website

I don't think you can find a better source for evaluating healthcare, they deal with so many different healthcare systems that they're bound to see what works and what doesn't.

Yep, that's pretty much the mission of WHO, but what evidence do you have that they're any good at evaluating the health care systems of countries? Guess how many times WHO has done an evaluation and comparison of world healthcare systems? Just once. WHO didn't even start directing their efforts toward healcare system development until 1998. Read the 2000 report; it states that right on the introduction page.

"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

Quote

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?

Keep it simple, everybody gets covered for everything. No, I'm not saying elective or cosmetic procedures like sex changes and breast implants. I'm talking medically required procedures. If you're sick or injured, you're covered. If you want to have implants take care of it yourself. If Mr. Wiggles makes you unhappy.....that's your expense.

You shouldn't be crucified for your hobbies. Besides, if you break your leg skydiving or riding a bicycle the procedure doesn't change. And statistically I believe skydiving is safer than driving a car.........it's not like they're going to stop you from driving now are they.

Quote

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.

You're right, that's a private choice and not for you to make for anybody. One should have all those choices available to them.

Quote

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.

False, there's enough doctor's to go around.....kids aren't gonna die because an older person is in hospice care. And once again that a personal choice it's not for you to make up for anyone.

Quote

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.

That's exactly what he's doing, "I'm not gonna pay for it why should you get it". Like I said it's fine if he doesn't want to, but other people should be able to make that decision for themselves.

Quote

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.

Chop some off the military funding and put it towards healthcare it's that simple. It's nice how you can just claim that's not true, but I'm required to give you proof.........that's a one sided debate. You haven't proven anything.

But just to prove I'm doing my part here you go.......

"A dozen years ago, everyone was talking about a health care crisis. But then the issue faded from view: a few years of good data led many people to conclude that H.M.O.'s and other innovations had ended the historic trend of rising medical costs.

But the pause in the growth of health care costs in the 1990's proved temporary. Medical costs are once again rising rapidly, and our health care system is once again in crisis. So now is a good time to ask why other advanced countries manage to spend so much less than we do, while getting better results.

Before I get to the numbers, let me deal with the usual problem one encounters when trying to draw lessons from foreign experience: somebody is sure to bring up the supposed horrors of Britain's government-run system, which historically had long waiting lists for elective surgery.

In fact, Britain's system isn't as bad as its reputation - especially for lower-paid workers, whose counterparts in the United States often have no health insurance at all. And the waiting lists have gotten shorter.

But in any case, Britain isn't the country we want to look at, because its health care system is run on the cheap, with total spending per person only 40 percent as high as ours.

The countries that have something to teach us are the nations that don't pinch pennies to the same extent - like France, Germany or Canada - but still spend far less than we do. (Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they're much shorter than Britain's - and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France and Germany don't have a waiting list problem.)

Let me rattle off some numbers.

In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child in the population. Of this, $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government spending.

Amazing, isn't it? U.S. health care is so expensive that our government spends more on health care than the governments of other advanced countries, even though the private sector pays a far higher share of the bills than anywhere else.

What do we get for all that money? Not much.

Most Americans probably don't know that we have substantially lower life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced countries. It would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this poor performance is entirely the result of a defective health care system; social factors, notably America's high poverty rate, surely play a role. Still, it seems puzzling that we spend so much, with so little return.

A 2003 study published in Health Affairs (one of whose authors is my Princeton colleague Uwe Reinhardt) tried to resolve that puzzle by comparing a number of measures of health services across the advanced world. What the authors found was that the United States scores high on high-tech services - we have lots of M.R.I.'s - but on more prosaic measures, like the number of doctors' visits and number of days spent in hospitals, America is only average, or even below average. There's also direct evidence that identical procedures cost far more in the U.S. than in other advanced countries.

The authors concluded that Americans spend far more on health care than their counterparts abroad - but they don't actually receive more care. The title of their article? "It's the Prices, Stupid."

Why is the price of U.S. health care so high? One answer is doctors' salaries: although average wages in France and the United States are similar, American doctors are paid much more than their French counterparts. Another answer is that America's health care system drives a poor bargain with the pharmaceutical industry.

Above all, a large part of America's health care spending goes into paperwork. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated that administrative costs took 31 cents out of every dollar the United States spent on health care, compared with only 17 cents in Canada."


**Originally published in The New York Times, 4.15.05**

Quote

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.

Stating that we could get money from excess military spending isn't making an assumption, I think we can all agree that we spend more on the military than any other country. We could cut back on that. That funding could be used for healthcare. In 2007 according to the budget (including the wars and nuclear missile programs and military retirement and healthcare) we spent 626.1 billion dollars...........the 2nd most money spent by a country on their military is 62.5 billion dollars and that's china. Note that china's figures are from 2004 and they probably don't include the missile programs and other stuff, but they're not gonna go up to anywhere near our level. Anyways, if we cut just 10% off or even 20% off of our budget, we're still way above number one and have a nice amount of excess funds that can be used on healthcare.

The "we could get money from here" just standing that it's something we don't necessarily have to do, but streamlining that amount down a bit will give us some nice excess funding.

Quote

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.

Proof? False, read the article above...it's lists the amount we spend compared to France which is ranked number 1. Also not if prices are regulated by a committee consisted of a panel of doctors and budget officials. That would keep prices fair for everybody and get rid of price gouging.

Quote

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?

Just like now, if the procedures are cosmetic and not medically required.....they would not be covered. Therefore, that's an invalid point.

Quote

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.

About 9.5 years worth.









PS - this has got to be the longest post I've ever written.

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

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Let me give you some info on the organization that researched the report.

"WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends." -from their website

I don't think you can find a better source for evaluating healthcare, they deal with so many different healthcare systems that they're bound to see what works and what doesn't.

Yep, that's pretty much the mission of WHO, but what evidence do you have that they're any good at evaluating the health care systems of countries? Guess how many times WHO has done an evaluation and comparison of world healthcare systems? Just once. WHO didn't even start directing their efforts toward healcare system development until 1998. Read the 2000 report; it states that right on the introduction page.

And what evidence do you have that they're bad at it?...........do you have figures that disprove their results? It's really easy to say, "No it's not" without proof........any 5 year old can do that.

And since they're funded by the UN and backed by a lot of countries, that sort of gives them some street credit........and what's yours?

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

[1969912 0]

Oopsie

I'm not trying to say that there are no problems with our current system, but do you intend to debate the issue of the WHO report that you brought up, or do you want to just keep presenting anecdotal evidence with no attempt to back it up?


http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/235445.html

"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

Quote

Let me give you some info on the organization that researched the report.

"WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends." -from their website

I don't think you can find a better source for evaluating healthcare, they deal with so many different healthcare systems that they're bound to see what works and what doesn't.

Yep, that's pretty much the mission of WHO, but what evidence do you have that they're any good at evaluating the health care systems of countries? Guess how many times WHO has done an evaluation and comparison of world healthcare systems? Just once. WHO didn't even start directing their efforts toward healcare system development until 1998. Read the 2000 report; it states that right on the introduction page.

And what evidence do you have that they're bad at it?...........do you have figures that disprove their results? It's really easy to say, "No it's not" without proof........any 5 year old can do that.

And since they're funded by the UN and backed by a lot of countries, that sort of gives them some street credit........and what's yours?

First, where did he say the WHO was bad at it?

Second, the UN is the least credible org on the planet not to mention the most corrupt. Ever heard of Oil for Food?

I would belive the Iranian leader over the UN

"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]

Quote

Oopsie

I'm not trying to say that there are no problems with our current system, but do you intend to debate the issue of the WHO report that you brought up, or do you want to just keep presenting anecdotal evidence with no attempt to back it up?


http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/235445.html

I definitely don't agree with the guy's decision, but it just goes to show that there are some serious problems with the current system and they need to be addressed.

There's a lot of people that just can't afford insurance and therefore can't afford to get sick. It's sad. And what happens when they get things like cancer.....then they're just SOL. That's not right. Everybody has the right to get treated, there should be no cases of turning people away in any case, but especially when their life is on the line.

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

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Let me give you some info on the organization that researched the report.

"WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends." -from their website

I don't think you can find a better source for evaluating healthcare, they deal with so many different healthcare systems that they're bound to see what works and what doesn't.

Yep, that's pretty much the mission of WHO, but what evidence do you have that they're any good at evaluating the health care systems of countries? Guess how many times WHO has done an evaluation and comparison of world healthcare systems? Just once. WHO didn't even start directing their efforts toward healcare system development until 1998. Read the 2000 report; it states that right on the introduction page.

And what evidence do you have that they're bad at it?...........do you have figures that disprove their results? It's really easy to say, "No it's not" without proof........any 5 year old can do that.

And since they're funded by the UN and backed by a lot of countries, that sort of gives them some street credit........and what's yours?

First, where did he say the WHO was bad at it?

Second, the UN is the least credible org on the planet not to mention the most corrupt. Ever heard of Oil for Food?

I would belive the Iranian leader over the UN

Second........of couse you wouldn't believe the UN, why believe anybody else.....only we are right.

"The Oil-for-Food Programme, established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security Council Resolution 986) and terminated in late 2003, was intended to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to rebuild its military."

Sounds like a good plan to me......sort of like exchaning some oil for food. Like they're paying for the food and medicine with oil. Makes sense.....they're not selling the oil to rebuild their military and the population gets food and medicine.

And that's because you're a little close-minded......you just can't take facts from anything that's not in your spectrum. I would tell you the world is round and if you're previous belief was it was flat...I could show you all the proof in the world and it wouldn't change your mind.

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

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

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

That was a feeble attempt at a cover up, even for you. Context does not alter your complete reversal of what the survey reported about the relative positions of Cuba and the USA.

...

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

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

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.
.

Have you taken into account "black" budget items, special wartime appropriations, DoE research expenditures, and all the myriad other ways the government hides the real cost of the US war machine?

And even if spending on social programs is comparable, WHY does the US need some 50% of the entire world's military expenditures?

...

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

[1969912 0]

Quote

And what evidence do you have that they're bad at it?...........do you have figures that disprove their results? It's really easy to say, "No it's not" without proof........any 5 year old can do that.

And since they're funded by the UN and backed by a lot of countries, that sort of gives them some street credit........and what's yours?

First, thanks for the reply.

No, I don't have any evidence that they're either good or bad at evaluating and comparing HC systems worldwide, and I never claimed that they were. I do, however have evidence that they have little experience in that area, which I presesented to you.

You and/or penniless initially used the WHO report as evidence that our current system was in crisis. I am still working my way through the documents and have made one post that presented an issue with with the report, and I believe there was sufficient evidence to back it up. If you disagree, then tell me why.

I have no street credit, and in my opnion, neither does the UN.

"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

Quote

Quote

Quote

Let me give you some info on the organization that researched the report.

"WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends." -from their website

I don't think you can find a better source for evaluating healthcare, they deal with so many different healthcare systems that they're bound to see what works and what doesn't.

Yep, that's pretty much the mission of WHO, but what evidence do you have that they're any good at evaluating the health care systems of countries? Guess how many times WHO has done an evaluation and comparison of world healthcare systems? Just once. WHO didn't even start directing their efforts toward healcare system development until 1998. Read the 2000 report; it states that right on the introduction page.

And what evidence do you have that they're bad at it?...........do you have figures that disprove their results? It's really easy to say, "No it's not" without proof........any 5 year old can do that.

And since they're funded by the UN and backed by a lot of countries, that sort of gives them some street credit........and what's yours?

First, where did he say the WHO was bad at it?

Second, the UN is the least credible org on the planet not to mention the most corrupt. Ever heard of Oil for Food?

I would belive the Iranian leader over the UN

Second........of couse you wouldn't believe the UN, why believe anybody else.....only we are right.

"The Oil-for-Food Programme, established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security Council Resolution 986) and terminated in late 2003, was intended to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to rebuild its military."

Sounds like a good plan to me......sort of like exchaning some oil for food. Like they're paying for the food and medicine with oil. Makes sense.....they're not selling the oil to rebuild their military and the population gets food and medicine.

And that's because you're a little close-minded......you just can't take facts from anything that's not in your spectrum. I would tell you the world is round and if you're previous belief was it was flat...I could show you all the proof in the world and it wouldn't change your mind.

You do like to throw out the insults don't you. Ya, that makes for a good debate.

Anyway, you made the claim of where the US stands. You need to the one to back up your source. The UN is a joke and you must not have followed what was the biggest (for a money perspective) scandal in the world which was oil for food. Why do you think France opposed going into Iraq? It was because of the money they would not longer collect not the metion Kofi's family.

And you call me closed minded. Sssswwwweeeeetttt

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

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Oopsie

I'm not trying to say that there are no problems with our current system, but do you intend to debate the issue of the WHO report that you brought up, or do you want to just keep presenting anecdotal evidence with no attempt to back it up?


http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/235445.html

I definitely don't agree with the guy's decision, but it just goes to show that there are some serious problems with the current system and they need to be addressed.

There's a lot of people that just can't afford insurance and therefore can't afford to get sick. It's sad. And what happens when they get things like cancer.....then they're just SOL. That's not right. Everybody has the right to get treated, there should be no cases of turning people away in any case, but especially when their life is on the line.

What? Did you go to the link? Maybe I misinterpreted your original post. The newspaper story from yesterday made it sound like a mercy killing. Today's story makes it look like the guy was known to be dangerous.

"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

Quote

And what evidence do you have that they're bad at it?...........do you have figures that disprove their results? It's really easy to say, "No it's not" without proof........any 5 year old can do that.

And since they're funded by the UN and backed by a lot of countries, that sort of gives them some street credit........and what's yours?

First, thanks for the reply.

No, I don't have any evidence that they're either good or bad at evaluating and comparing HC systems worldwide, and I never claimed that they were. I do, however have evidence that they have little experience in that area, which I presesented to you.

You and/or penniless initially used the WHO report as evidence that our current system was in crisis. I am still working my way through the documents and have made one post that presented an issue with with the report, and I believe there was sufficient evidence to back it up. If you disagree, then tell me why.

I have no street credit, and in my opnion, neither does the UN.

No problem at all....you sound like a smart guy. I admire that you don't just have the outright belief that you're right and everyone else is wrong. You're actually reading the stuff and trying to find out.....that's awesome.

I do believe that the WHO report is a good source as it's not biased towards any country.....and since they are backed by a lot of countries that gives them a lot of credit.

If you do find anything that proves there are issues with the report of the WHO themselves I would be very interested in reading it. I'm definitely not trying to be one sided on any of this......I'm more than open to any materials that proves something else.

As I said, the WHO is backed by a lot of countries and so is the UN.....if it was worthless I don't think it would be. And I don't think that we would be part of the UN in that case either. While 2 years isn't a long time to be conducting Healthcare research, that's 2 years of experience that I don't have. And we're not just talking about "yeah I've had health insurance for the past twenty years".......we're talking evaluating healthcare as a job 40 hours a week for two years. It would take me a long time to get that kind of experience.

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

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Let me give you some info on the organization that researched the report.

"WHO is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for providing leadership on global health matters, shaping the health research agenda, setting norms and standards, articulating evidence-based policy options, providing technical support to countries and monitoring and assessing health trends." -from their website

I don't think you can find a better source for evaluating healthcare, they deal with so many different healthcare systems that they're bound to see what works and what doesn't.

Yep, that's pretty much the mission of WHO, but what evidence do you have that they're any good at evaluating the health care systems of countries? Guess how many times WHO has done an evaluation and comparison of world healthcare systems? Just once. WHO didn't even start directing their efforts toward healcare system development until 1998. Read the 2000 report; it states that right on the introduction page.

And what evidence do you have that they're bad at it?...........do you have figures that disprove their results? It's really easy to say, "No it's not" without proof........any 5 year old can do that.

And since they're funded by the UN and backed by a lot of countries, that sort of gives them some street credit........and what's yours?

First, where did he say the WHO was bad at it?

Second, the UN is the least credible org on the planet not to mention the most corrupt. Ever heard of Oil for Food?

I would belive the Iranian leader over the UN

Second........of couse you wouldn't believe the UN, why believe anybody else.....only we are right.

"The Oil-for-Food Programme, established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security Council Resolution 986) and terminated in late 2003, was intended to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to rebuild its military."

Sounds like a good plan to me......sort of like exchaning some oil for food. Like they're paying for the food and medicine with oil. Makes sense.....they're not selling the oil to rebuild their military and the population gets food and medicine.

And that's because you're a little close-minded......you just can't take facts from anything that's not in your spectrum. I would tell you the world is round and if you're previous belief was it was flat...I could show you all the proof in the world and it wouldn't change your mind.

You do like to throw out the insults don't you. Ya, that makes for a good debate.

Anyway, you made the claim of where the US stands. You need to the one to back up your source. The UN is a joke and you must not have followed what was the biggest (for a money perspective) scandal in the world which was oil for food. Why do you think France opposed going into Iraq? It was because of the money they would not longer collect not the metion Kofi's family.

And you call me closed minded. Sssswwwweeeeetttt

If you're going to disprove something then do so......saying "am not" isn't proving or disproving anything.

Let's look at the facts.......you get a report, read something in the first paragraph you don't like and then refuse to read the rest because it can't be true according to your beliefs. I wouldn't consider that an objective look at things.....I would call that close-minded. It's not an insult, it's the truth.

As far as the scandal stuff with the Oil for Food program.............there's bad apples in every bunch. Logic 101: Just because one UN Member or even a couple steal money doesn't mean all of them are thieves. That would be like saying every catholic priest is a pedaphile, every republican accepts under the counter illegal funds..........it's not a valid argument. It was a shame that it happened and those people should be legally responsible.

Or maybe France had good intelligence that showed that there were no wmd's? You know, the stuff we ignored. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHnSPsZshyM

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

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Oopsie

I'm not trying to say that there are no problems with our current system, but do you intend to debate the issue of the WHO report that you brought up, or do you want to just keep presenting anecdotal evidence with no attempt to back it up?


http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/235445.html

I definitely don't agree with the guy's decision, but it just goes to show that there are some serious problems with the current system and they need to be addressed.

There's a lot of people that just can't afford insurance and therefore can't afford to get sick. It's sad. And what happens when they get things like cancer.....then they're just SOL. That's not right. Everybody has the right to get treated, there should be no cases of turning people away in any case, but especially when their life is on the line.

What? Did you go to the link? Maybe I misinterpreted your original post. The newspaper story from yesterday made it sound like a mercy killing. Today's story makes it look like the guy was known to be dangerous.

I went to the link and read it.....today's article definitely makes it sound that way. That's why I said I don't agree with his choices......regardless of if it was a mercy killing or not, unless of course it was her will. But if the guy truely did this because they could no longer afford this because of the medical bills then it's a sad story that could have been prevented.

18,000 people a year die because they can't afford health insurance according to USA Today, here's the link http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm

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

[1969912 0]

Quote

I do believe that the WHO report is a good source as it's not biased towards any country.....and since they are backed by a lot of countries that gives them a lot of credit.

If you do find anything that proves there are issues with the report of the WHO themselves I would be very interested in reading it. I'm definitely not trying to be one sided on any of this......I'm more than open to any materials that proves something else.

I'm making slow progress in analyzing the report.


I don't think that WHO is biased toward any particular country, or even a group of countries, but digging after through their report, I have no doubt at all that they are very biased toward a certain healthcare model.

"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

I do believe that the WHO report is a good source as it's not biased towards any country.....and since they are backed by a lot of countries that gives them a lot of credit.

If you do find anything that proves there are issues with the report of the WHO themselves I would be very interested in reading it. I'm definitely not trying to be one sided on any of this......I'm more than open to any materials that proves something else.

I'm making slow progress in analyzing the report.


I don't think that WHO is biased toward any particular country, or even a group of countries, but digging after through their report, I have no doubt at all that they are very biased toward a certain healthcare model.

What model/type is it biased toward?

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

[1969912 0]

Quote

18,000 people a year die because they can't afford health insurance according to USA Today, here's the link http://www.usatoday.com/...insurance-deaths.htm

I'll read it later, but right after reading it, will look up the sources and methodology used to generate that number. Consider this: Why does the WHO report not have a special section to address an issue of that magnitude?

"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

[1969912 0]

Quote

What model/type is it biased toward?

I use the term "socialist", which may or may not be strictly true, but WHO believes that a system entirely controlled by the federal government and funded by taxes is the only viable model. Everybody pays their "fair" share, and everybody gets equal and probably far superior 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

[billvon 3,070]

>You can not come up with one example where a gov runs
>something better than the private sector.

The Center for Disease Control.
NASA.
Air Traffic Control.
The Federal Reserve.