On November 02 2008 03:44 Savio wrote: Comparing health systems is very difficult. For example, systems that were designed to provide nationlized access to every citizens will obviously look really good when one of the most key questions is about everyone's access to basic health care.
But it is harder to analyze the effect of increased availability of imaging equipment, increased access to specialists, and other such factors that the current US system has.
So I don't buy it at face value when some study shows the US "performing" below European standards.
I'm not actually arguing that the US system is better, but that the rankings you see online are not as accurate indicators and most people believe.
Infant mortality is one of the most significant health indicators and very easy to compare. According to the CIA Factbook the USA ranks below Greece, Ireland, Slovenia and a whole host of other nations, as well as significantly below the European Union average. According to the United Nations World Population Prospects report, for the period 2005-2010, the USA also ranks below Cuba. The figures are widely available. Of course the USA still has an impressive rate by international standards but it is food for thought.
Blindly comparing raw numbers of infant mortality rates is misleading if not outright dishonest, since these reflect a combination of many factors, not all of which are directly related to quality of healthcare. For example, you would get a much more honest comparison if you control for demographic differences. It is well-known that different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates.
The same can be said for all those international comparisons of secondary education, btw.
On November 02 2008 03:44 Savio wrote: Comparing health systems is very difficult. For example, systems that were designed to provide nationlized access to every citizens will obviously look really good when one of the most key questions is about everyone's access to basic health care.
But it is harder to analyze the effect of increased availability of imaging equipment, increased access to specialists, and other such factors that the current US system has.
So I don't buy it at face value when some study shows the US "performing" below European standards.
I'm not actually arguing that the US system is better, but that the rankings you see online are not as accurate indicators and most people believe.
Infant mortality is one of the most significant health indicators and very easy to compare. According to the CIA Factbook the USA ranks below Greece, Ireland, Slovenia and a whole host of other nations, as well as significantly below the European Union average. According to the United Nations World Population Prospects report, for the period 2005-2010, the USA also ranks below Cuba. The figures are widely available. Of course the USA still has an impressive rate by international standards but it is food for thought.
Blindly comparing raw numbers of infant mortality rates is misleading if not outright dishonest, since these reflect a combination of many factors, not all of which are directly related to quality of healthcare. For example, you would get a much more honest comparison if you control for demographic differences. It is well-known that different ethnic groups in the US have quite widely varying infant mortality rates.
The same can be said for all those international comparisons of secondary education, btw.
What are you talking about? Care to mention these "other" factors that apparantly kill babies in the US and not in Cuba? Do your children starve to death? I somehow doubt it. Do you beat them to death? Perhaps but I doubt you do it so much more than the Cubans that it would have a significant impact on the statistics. Why would we control for demographic differences? Unless your system actually only is inplace to provide healthcare for white people. However I somehow doubt that to, since it actually would make you worse than the apartheid regime. The fact remains the healthcare system in the US for all its "competetivness" and insane amounts of money manages to save less children than the one in Cuba. There is absolutely nothing dishonest about that comparasion.
Palin interview with Greta w/e her name is on Fox:
We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there and understand the contrast. And we talk a lot about, OK, we're confident that we're going to win on Tuesday, so from there, the first 100 days, how are we going to kick in the plan that will get this economy back on the right track and really shore up the strategies that we need over in Iraq and Iran to win these wars?
That pic includes only under 25. But you all know what the numbers have been like for the last 20-30 years or so.
Savio, you need to stop posting misleading shit statistics. Of course France has lower unemployement rates for those under 25. More French go to COLLEGE and don't work from ages 18-22. The French unemployment rate is 7.5% compared to the 6.1% in the United States. More French actually finish secondary school as well. The margin of the French population enrolled in the education system does more than account for the difference.
France's healthcare system was ranked #1 by WHO, they have a top notch education system, and they sport a drove of other statistics that make the United States look like a joke.
The margin of people enrolled in the education system does not account for the different at all, because they aren't included as unemployed.
Actually, I'm curious how France calculates unemployment. It would be sad if other countries follow the BEA's retarded standards.
At an event in Laramie, Wyoming, on Saturday, Vice President Dick Cheney said he will cast his ballot for the McCain-Palin ticket.
"This year, of course, I'm not on the ballot, so I am here ... not to vote for me, but I want to join daughter Liz, who is with me today, join us in casting ... our ballots for John McCain and Sarah Palin."
That pic includes only under 25. But you all know what the numbers have been like for the last 20-30 years or so.
Savio, you need to stop posting misleading shit statistics. Of course France has lower unemployement rates for those under 25. More French go to COLLEGE and don't work from ages 18-22. The French unemployment rate is 7.5% compared to the 6.1% in the United States. More French actually finish secondary school as well. The margin of the French population enrolled in the education system does more than account for the difference.
France's healthcare system was ranked #1 by WHO, they have a top notch education system, and they sport a drove of other statistics that make the United States look like a joke.
The margin of people enrolled in the education system does not account for the different at all, because they aren't included as unemployed.
Actually, I'm curious how France calculates unemployment. It would be sad if other countries follow the BEA's retarded standards.
There are slight differences between how the US and the EU calculate unemployment. However, in all definitions, it only includes those who are actively seeking jobs.
There is no measure of unemployment that includes univeristy students who choose to study rather than too work.
In an earlier post, I stated that comparing health systems is difficult. However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet. This has been an exceedingly difficult question for me to answer because you know how much I hate to see government power and influence increase. But on the other hand, in my Economics education, we built models based on both single payer systems and market driven systems. There is sound theory supporting both.
Also, now in my medical education, I am seeing so many things that are ridiculous. I worked with a family doctor for a few months and I noticed that he had to memorize the policies of all the government programs (medicare, medicaid) as well as the policies of every single major health insurance provider in our area so that he could prescribe drugs to people that will get paid. That is a problem in my opinion. That is not "medicine". Doctors have enough to memorize already.
I see good things in the health systems of Canda and Europe and I see shortcomings. I still hear from a lot of Canadians, that they come to the US for their "serious" heath care.
And finally, as a health provider, I would prefer that "ability to pay" not be a factor in determining how I treat patients.
So....I don't have a fixed opinion on how to change the US health system.
But for those of you on this forum who are more educated and/or more interested in serious thinking about the issue, here is a piece of primary literature on it. Its from Stanford and it feels very well thought out and unbiased.
The article explores WHY the US pays a higher percentage of our GDP on health. And there is a lot more to it than the shallow explanations we have heard on this forum so far (for example, we carry much of the research and development load for the rest of the world). Our health structure and overhead ARE a factor, but there is much more.
Its a good read and not to technical, even though it is primary literature.
On November 02 2008 09:04 Jibba wrote: Actually, I'm curious how France calculates unemployment. It would be sad if other countries follow the BEA's retarded standards.
You have to be - older than 16 - seeking actively a job - ready to take a job in the next 15 days
btw i don't understand why Savio thinks that unemployment is linked to socialized medicine.
We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there and understand the contrast. And we talk a lot about, OK, we're confident that we're going to win on Tuesday, so from there, the first 100 days, how are we going to kick in the plan that will get this economy back on the right track and really shore up the strategies that we need over in Iraq and Iran to win these wars?
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
The government also offers basic public health services for free, covers a lot of other costs, has major mandates on your private insurance companies and forces a health pension out of everyone's income, so it's not like the government isn't interfering.
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
are you kidding me? Nobody fucking chooses to have a serious illness. (except smokers =[ ) but even they should get treatment
That's precisely the problem with the entitlement mentality. I didn't choose to fall sick last week, but why should someone else pick up the bill for me? If you go by the "it's not their fault" argument, you could make a case for the government to provide EVERYTHING, from hearing aids to experimental drugs.
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
The government also offers basic public health services for free, covers a lot of other costs, has major mandates on your private insurance companies and forces a health pension out of everyone's income, so it's not like the government isn't interfering.
It is interfering, but at a low cost. I think the government still bears about 30% of healthcare cost, but that doesn't amount to much, especially considering the results.
Basically, I don't think reasonable healthcare is achieved through massive government spending. I don't think America has to give up its capitalism to achieve that.
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
are you kidding me? Nobody fucking chooses to have a serious illness. (except smokers =[ ) but even they should get treatment
That's precisely the problem with the entitlement mentality. I didn't choose to fall sick last week, but why should someone else pick up the bill for me? If you go by the "it's not their fault" argument, you could make a case for the government to provide EVERYTHING, from hearing aids to experimental drugs.
do you seriously understand what you are saying?
Do you understand how expensive healthcare is in the United States? Do you live here?
What the fuck?
Its thousands upon thousands of dollars to go to the hospital or be driven in an ambulance......you dont think the government (especially for the "wealthiest" nation on earth" shouldnt be able to help out its citizens? No, instead we have fucking warmongering, jesus camp, anti science dumbfucks who want to be greedy and start wars and shit, so we cant have better education and health care for the citizens of this country.
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
are you kidding me? Nobody fucking chooses to have a serious illness. (except smokers =[ ) but even they should get treatment
That's precisely the problem with the entitlement mentality. I didn't choose to fall sick last week, but why should someone else pick up the bill for me? If you go by the "it's not their fault" argument, you could make a case for the government to provide EVERYTHING, from hearing aids to experimental drugs.
do you seriously understand what you are saying?
Do you understand how expensive healthcare is in the United States? Do you live here?
What the fuck?
Its thousands upon thousands of dollars to go to the hospital or be driven in an ambulance......you dont think the government (especially for the "wealthiest" nation on earth" shouldnt be able to help out its citizens? No, instead we have fucking warmongering, jesus camp, anti science dumbfucks who want to be greedy and start wars and shit, so we cant have better education and health care for the citizens of this country.
Let me make this simple for you.
1. Healthcare costs are lower here BECAUSE of the system. Therefore, we are able to afford more. Since your healthcare costs are higher because of your system, I thought it would be interesting to look at a different kind of system that provides lower health costs.
2. Nobody has defined what "universal healthcare" is. If you have an obscure disease, are you entitled to healthcare just because you didn't ask for it, even if it costs millions of dollars? Logically, we just have to accept that some diseases are too expensive to put on the government's bill.
If you want to keep thinking that the solution to healthcare is for the government to pay for everything, be my guest. But it's unsustainable.
On November 02 2008 09:51 Savio wrote: However, my opinion on universal health care is not made yet.
Well, what IS universal health care? Everyone talks about it as if it's the most obvious thing in the world, but I've never heard anyone defining it. When does a disease become so expensive to treat that he should no longer be covered under the government's healthcare plan?
Singapore's healthcare system is worth a study. I'm convinced it works because we don't see "universal healthcare" as a right. You spent your money on your lung cancer? Okay, but don't expect anyone to bail you out when you then find you've got Alzheimer's.
I'm convinced that better healthcare is achievable through greater private spending as opposed to government spending. When healthcare becomes free, the biggest problem is that everyone starts thinking they have the "right" to any and everything they want.
are you kidding me? Nobody fucking chooses to have a serious illness. (except smokers =[ ) but even they should get treatment
That's precisely the problem with the entitlement mentality. I didn't choose to fall sick last week, but why should someone else pick up the bill for me? If you go by the "it's not their fault" argument, you could make a case for the government to provide EVERYTHING, from hearing aids to experimental drugs.
do you seriously understand what you are saying?
Do you understand how expensive healthcare is in the United States? Do you live here?
What the fuck?
Its thousands upon thousands of dollars to go to the hospital or be driven in an ambulance......you dont think the government (especially for the "wealthiest" nation on earth" shouldnt be able to help out its citizens? No, instead we have fucking warmongering, jesus camp, anti science dumbfucks who want to be greedy and start wars and shit, so we cant have better education and health care for the citizens of this country.
Let me make this simple for you.
1. Healthcare costs are lower here BECAUSE of the system. Therefore, we are able to afford more. Since your healthcare costs are higher because of your system, I thought it would be interesting to look at a different kind of system that provides lower health costs.
2. Nobody has defined what "universal healthcare" is. If you have an obscure disease, are you entitled to healthcare just because you didn't ask for it, even if it costs millions of dollars? Logically, we just have to accept that some diseases are too expensive to put on the government's bill.
If you want to keep thinking that the solution to healthcare is for the government to pay for everything, be my guest. But it's unsustainable.
Ok, so if i have some obscure disease that costs money to treat, and I dont have the money to pay for it.... should I be left to die?
I believe Brazil has something really close to universal health care system because of the following.
1 - Theres public health for everyone, all poor people can get treatment for theyr illness for free, of course theres a huge demand, and the costs are high, and theres corruption, BUT, in general, if you earn minimum wage, and need a heart surgery that would cost thousands of dollars, you can get it for free 95% of the cases.
The private sector is more efficient, and everyone that can afford it preffers it, tons have health ensurance, keep the public sector less flooded and for the ones that need it.
2 - We have the SUS program, witch gives a monthly aid for poor people to buy theyr prescription drugs, we also broke most of the drugs patents to create generic versions of the same for a very lower price, so we can keep this system affordable, theres some AIDS patients that get almost 1500 dollars per month of prescription drugs, and they all get it, no sick person is left behind.
3 - The government is very involved in most health interpreneurs, like vacination days they set up outposts in parks and stuff to get people vaccinated for no cost, the army is trained to help in epidemics, etc...
4 - Finally, we are never satisfied and constantly demand improvement, we have an excelent private sector, and a working public sector, but everyone belive both should be top notch.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://static.flickr.com/43/113103195_aa114e1fa4.jpg?v=0)
