I'm not buying it for a minute. Is this about access or choices? Because a lot of people die who might of lived had they chosen to go to the doctor.
This sounds like propaganda to me. If you want to know where the best health care in the world is, look where the leaders in countries that have socialized medicine come to get their doctorin' done.
Bike Bubba
· 1 year ago
Notice that the article does not define what it means by "deaths that could have been prevented" to any significant degree, nor does it suggest at all the methodology used.
You can, however, buy the book!
Davinski, if this lack of detail doesn't bother you, you simply aren't thinking.
Rob
· 1 year ago
Also, while this doesn't necessarily discount the findings of the study, The Commonwealth Fund is a big-time liberal outfit headed up by a former fellow of the Brookings Institute. The group has been pushing for socialized medicine for years.
Not exactly an objective source of information. Not, again, that this necessarily discounts the findings. But it certainly raises a red flag.
likwidshoe
· 1 year ago
Liberals say that America's health care gets an "F".
Well, bowl me over! Why, how surprising that a bunch of socialists would rip on America for not being socialist enough.
Give us a break, Davinski.
Davinski
· 1 year ago
Likwidshoe-- Give us a break Davinski?? Good to see you give a sound argument. LOL!!!
Shimmy
· 1 year ago
The U.S. health care system is the best in the world except when your death can be prevented by access to timely and effective health care.
The Whistler
· 1 year ago
Fraudulent study. The US is the best in the world.
We got an "f" because we weren't socialized, even while we have the best care.
Why don't you socialists go out and buy coverage for yourselves and anyone else you want covered.
Stay out of my pocket. I pay for my own coverage.
WOOF
· 1 year ago
[quote]I pay for my own coverage[/quote] What if you're in a hospital for say 18 months? Still have coverage then?
Spartacus
· 1 year ago
[quote]The U.S. health care system is the best in the world except when your death can be prevented by access to timely and effective health care.[/quote]
Yep, just ask Belinda Stronach.
Spartacus
· 1 year ago
[quote]What if you're in a hospital for say 18 months? Still have coverage then?[/quote]
I agree with Whistler. Speaking for myself, long before I was in a hospital for 18 months, no matter how much medical coverage I have, I'd discharge myself, go home and let nature take it's course. That's not living, it's existing. Did you protest the pulling of Terry Schivao's feeding tube with as vigor?
Spartacus
· 1 year ago
^ much
insert where it fits
The Whistler
· 1 year ago
[quote]Still have coverage then?[/quote]
yes.
WOOF
· 1 year ago
Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) and Medicare Part B (medical insurance?
The Whistler
· 1 year ago
No, it's about planning for the future, but not far enough to qualify for medicare.
robert108
· 1 year ago
I know that most medical systems in the world don't count infant mortality as preventable death, but we do in the US. In fact, we try to save every infant who needs it, even though it lowers our "statistical average".
Bat One
· 1 year ago
This thing has all the makings of another Lancet survey... and it is suspiciously similar in a number of murky ways.
Its difficult to tell if this "study" (in reality, an update of a previous study) actually says what is purported in the article and in Davinski's post, as the full text version is apparently available only by subscription ([url=http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/27/1/58]here[/url]).
Certainly it would be interesting and informative to get a more precise definition of "amenable mortality" than merely "deaths from certain causes before age 75 that are potentially preventable with timely and effective health care." along with a detailed description of just how "...the quality and performance of health systems" was actually measured. A list of those causes would be helpful as would an explanation of just what is and as not considered "preventable" and by whose determination such judgments were made. Might also help to know if the "study" included the 12-20 million illegal alien population, most of whom are uninsured and thus skew the results unlike any other country included.
The raw data, we are [url=http://www.commonwealthfund.org/user_doc/1090_Nolte_measuring_hlt_of_nations_HA_01-2008_ITL(web).pdf?section=4039]informed[/url], comes from the UN's World Health Organization, which hardly attests to its accuracy, much less the validity of the authors' conjectures/conclusions.
But what little is available about the "study" certainly doesn't support the egregious hype, such as that of Davinski. According to the authors, the US improvement was 4% over the previous results. Hardly the end of the world as we know it, and certainly not sufficient rationale for a government takeover of the country's health care system as is being promoted by the economics-illiterate Left.
Davinski
· 1 year ago
Bat One-- Good post! However, you can't dismiss the piece because the WHO (World Health Organization) is involved. It is very respected throughout the world. Honestly, how can you defend the broken down health care system we have? You are in a minority. In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system, including 54 percent "very" dissatisfied.
I know countless horror stories of how insurance companies have refused to pay for certain procedures over Doctor's recommendations. I know people who are paying incredibly absurd prices to keep their family insured.
your remark about a "4% improvement isn't the end of the world" threw me. It was last out of all the industrialized nations. For the 109 out of every 1000 deaths, it is the end of the world for those unfortunate folks.
The Whistler
· 1 year ago
How many people would like health care to be free? It isn't so too bad.
A better thing would be for people like Davinski to start paying his bills and I'll continue to pay mine.
robert108
· 1 year ago
Davinski: The problem you cited with insurance companies is not a problem with the quality of our healthcare system. It is due to lack of competition in the insurance field, due to govt regulation that produces fewer choices for the consumer. Once again, if infant mortality figures are included in your "statistics", then standards of care must also be included, and I'm betting they aren't, since those in the US are much higher than elsewhere. That's enough to give a false impression right there. Generally speaking, the standards of care in the US are higher in the the rest of the world. As usual, the dictators and slaveowners in the UN are trying to make the US look bad.
The Whistler
· 1 year ago
[quote]The problem you cited with insurance companies is not a problem with the quality of our healthcare system. It is due to lack of competition in the insurance field,[/quote]
And when the government has it there is NO competition. The government will tell you what surgeries you may and may not have depending on whether or not they think you're living right.
Plus they'll ration care with long waiting lines like they do in other places with "free" health care.
robert108
· 1 year ago
TW: Exactly. As I like to say; "The solution to the problems of socialism is [i]not[/i] more socialism."
Bat One
· 1 year ago
Davinski,
First, regarding the UN's World Health Organization, I'm not aware of any WHO accomplishment warranting that worldwide respect you mention. Care to enlighten me with some specifics? (Hint: You might start by explaining the unconscionable, politically correct idiocy of allowing the "amenable mortality" of over 1 million children a year worldwide to the ravages of malaria instead of killing off the anopheles mosquito with DDT.)
In addition, I suggest you read my front page post on "Stealing From Your Doctor", keeping in mind that, as any second year medical student will tell you, a correct diagnosis is no guarantee of an effective cure. Without a detailed examination of the cited "study", the methodology used and the detailed raw data from which its conjectures/conclusions are drawn, it is impossible to evaluate its accuracy.
Let me repeat a single point of contention. If the so-called "amenable mortality numbers include illegal alien deaths in the United states, the study itself is horribly flawed. In the first place no other country has anywhere near the number of illegal aliens as does the US. Second, including those deaths assumes that the host country, the US, has a responsibility to prevent them as a matter of policy. Clearly that presumption is not yet established. Third, even assuming that the aforesaid responsibility is assumed as a matter of national policy, there is still the question of making that very substantial, largely English-illiterate segment of our population aware of the medical options available to them.
All Comments
This sounds like propaganda to me. If you want to know where the best health care in the world is, look where the leaders in countries that have socialized medicine come to get their doctorin' done.
You can, however, buy the book!
Davinski, if this lack of detail doesn't bother you, you simply aren't thinking.
Not exactly an objective source of information. Not, again, that this necessarily discounts the findings. But it certainly raises a red flag.
Well, bowl me over! Why, how surprising that a bunch of socialists would rip on America for not being socialist enough.
Give us a break, Davinski.
to timely and effective health care.
We got an "f" because we weren't socialized, even while we have the best care.
Why don't you socialists go out and buy coverage for yourselves and anyone else you want covered.
Stay out of my pocket. I pay for my own coverage.
What if you're in a hospital for say 18 months?
Still have coverage then?
to timely and effective health care.[/quote]
Yep, just ask Belinda Stronach.
Still have coverage then?[/quote]
I agree with Whistler. Speaking for myself, long before I was in a hospital for 18 months, no matter how much medical coverage I have, I'd discharge myself, go home and let nature take it's course. That's not living, it's existing. Did you protest the pulling of Terry Schivao's feeding tube with as vigor?
insert where it fits
yes.
Its difficult to tell if this "study" (in reality, an update of a previous study) actually says what is purported in the article and in Davinski's post, as the full text version is apparently available only by subscription ([url=http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/27/1/58]here[/url]).
Certainly it would be interesting and informative to get a more precise definition of "amenable mortality" than merely "deaths from certain causes before age 75 that are potentially preventable with timely and effective health care." along with a detailed description of just how "...the quality and performance of health systems" was actually measured. A list of those causes would be helpful as would an explanation of just what is and as not considered "preventable" and by whose determination such judgments were made. Might also help to know if the "study" included the 12-20 million illegal alien population, most of whom are uninsured and thus skew the results unlike any other country included.
The raw data, we are [url=http://www.commonwealthfund.org/user_doc/1090_Nolte_measuring_hlt_of_nations_HA_01-2008_ITL(web).pdf?section=4039]informed[/url],
comes from the UN's World Health Organization, which hardly attests to its accuracy, much less the validity of the authors' conjectures/conclusions.
But what little is available about the "study" certainly doesn't support the egregious hype, such as that of Davinski. According to the authors, the US improvement was 4% over the previous results. Hardly the end of the world as we know it, and certainly not sufficient rationale for a government takeover of the country's health care system as is being promoted by the economics-illiterate Left.
Honestly, how can you defend the broken down health care system we have? You are in a minority. In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation's health care system, including 54 percent "very" dissatisfied.
I know countless horror stories of how insurance companies have refused to pay for certain procedures over Doctor's recommendations. I know people who are paying incredibly absurd prices to keep their family insured.
your remark about a "4% improvement isn't the end of the world" threw me. It was last out of all the industrialized nations. For the 109 out of every 1000
deaths, it is the end of the world for those unfortunate folks.
A better thing would be for people like Davinski to start paying his bills and I'll continue to pay mine.
And when the government has it there is NO competition. The government will tell you what surgeries you may and may not have depending on whether or not they think you're living right.
Plus they'll ration care with long waiting lines like they do in other places with "free" health care.
First, regarding the UN's World Health Organization, I'm not aware of any WHO accomplishment warranting that worldwide respect you mention. Care to enlighten me with some specifics? (Hint: You might start by explaining the unconscionable, politically correct idiocy of allowing the "amenable mortality" of over 1 million children a year worldwide to the ravages of malaria instead of killing off the anopheles mosquito with DDT.)
In addition, I suggest you read my front page post on "Stealing From Your Doctor", keeping in mind that, as any second year medical student will tell you, a correct diagnosis is no guarantee of an effective cure. Without a detailed examination of the cited "study", the methodology used and the detailed raw data from which its conjectures/conclusions are drawn, it is impossible to evaluate its accuracy.
Let me repeat a single point of contention. If the so-called "amenable mortality numbers include illegal alien deaths in the United states, the study itself is horribly flawed. In the first place no other country has anywhere near the number of illegal aliens as does the US. Second, including those deaths assumes that the host country, the US, has a responsibility to prevent them as a matter of policy. Clearly that presumption is not yet established. Third, even assuming that the aforesaid responsibility is assumed as a matter of national policy, there is still the question of making that very substantial, largely English-illiterate segment of our population aware of the medical options available to them.