|
On March 25 2010 03:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2010 03:05 twoliveanddie wrote:
sorry to say, but the USA is falling down to the level of canada, falling down to the level of sweden and the UK and any other nation that has national healthcare. Sweden outperforms the US in pretty much every measurable healthcare factor and spends far less to do so. Falling up to the level of Sweden?
Health:
USA: Life expectancy :078.1
Infant mortality rate : 6.7
Physicians per 1000 people:2.4
Sweden: Life expectancy :81.0
Infant mortality rate :2.5
Physicians per 1000 people: 3.6
Cost:
USA Per capita expenditure on health (USD) 7,290
Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP 16.0
Sweden :
Per capita expenditure on health (USD) 3,323
Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP 9.1
Here is an illustration to what USA is spending and what they are actually getting compared to other countries.
|
On March 25 2010 03:05 twoliveanddie wrote:
sorry to say, but the USA is falling down to the level of canada, falling down to the level of sweden and the UK and any other nation that has national healthcare.
You're going to get owned if you try to compare yourself to Canadian standards of health care, let alone Sweden, so I'd think twice before making a comment like that in passing.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 25 2010 04:06 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2010 03:41 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2010 03:05 twoliveanddie wrote:
sorry to say, but the USA is falling down to the level of canada, falling down to the level of sweden and the UK and any other nation that has national healthcare. Sweden outperforms the US in pretty much every measurable healthcare factor and spends far less to do so. Falling up to the level of Sweden? Health:USA: Life expectancy :078.1 Infant mortality rate : 6.7 Physicians per 1000 people:2.4 Sweden: Life expectancy :81.0 Infant mortality rate :2.5 Physicians per 1000 people: 3.6 Cost:USA Per capita expenditure on health (USD) 7,290 Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP 16.0 Sweden : Per capita expenditure on health (USD) 3,323 Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP 9.1 Here is an illustration to what USA is spending and what they are actually getting compared to other countries.
Goddamnit people, we've been over this. Infant mortality rate stats are bullshit because countries like Sweden have different standards of what a livebirth is. The US standard is more rigorous and thus results in a higher number. Life expectancy is even more complicated, because people have an entire life time to make the numbers meaningless.
Do people in Sweden have a better diet than most Americans? Probably. Bet that factors into life expectancy! Does that factor into healthcare quality? No.
Does Sweden have less violent crime than America? Probably. Bet that factors into life expectancy! Does that factor into healthcare quality? No.
Does Sweden have a more homogeneous population, which is therefore at risk of less health complications? (Think installing software on a PC vs. a Mac. There's a lot more combinations and therefore more unpredictable hereditary conditions in the US.) Probably. Bet that factors into life expectancy! Does that factor into healthcare quality? No.
Stop comparing raw numbers if you aren't going to factor into socioeconomic/political/geographical considerations. If that's not possible (which I know hasn't been properly done yet), then make your comparison based on a qualitative study. Those are out there. Go use them.
|
United States43187 Posts
USA Per capita expenditure on health (USD) 7,290
Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP 16.0
Physicians per 1000 people:2.4
Sweden Per capita expenditure on health (USD) 3,323
Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP 9.1
Physicians per 1000 people: 3.6
Got any problems with those numbers? One of the key complaints by opponents of socialism is the inefficiency of it.
|
United States22883 Posts
You could probably make a case about the physicians, but I don't know how to research it either way. For instance, healthcare reform/socialized medicine isn't going to change the cost of going to med school, etc.
I'm in agreement with the rest though. Like I posted earlier, this is primarily about costs and making sure there's a sustainable model for the coming decades. Is the Swedish system better than ours? Probably. Is it because we have dumbass doctors who don't know how to deliver babies properly? No.
I'm still pro public option, I'm just anti shitty statistics.
|
Congratulations USA 
|
On March 25 2010 04:43 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2010 04:06 Integra wrote:On March 25 2010 03:41 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2010 03:05 twoliveanddie wrote:
sorry to say, but the USA is falling down to the level of canada, falling down to the level of sweden and the UK and any other nation that has national healthcare. Sweden outperforms the US in pretty much every measurable healthcare factor and spends far less to do so. Falling up to the level of Sweden? Health:USA: Life expectancy :078.1 Infant mortality rate : 6.7 Physicians per 1000 people:2.4 Sweden: Life expectancy :81.0 Infant mortality rate :2.5 Physicians per 1000 people: 3.6 Cost:USA Per capita expenditure on health (USD) 7,290 Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP 16.0 Sweden : Per capita expenditure on health (USD) 3,323 Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP 9.1 Here is an illustration to what USA is spending and what they are actually getting compared to other countries. Goddamnit people, we've been over this. Infant mortality rate stats are bullshit because countries like Sweden have different standards of what a livebirth is. The US standard is more rigorous and thus results in a higher number. Life expectancy is even more complicated, because people have an entire life time to make the numbers meaningless. Do people in Sweden have a better diet than most Americans? Probably. Bet that factors into life expectancy! Does that factor into healthcare quality? No. Does Sweden have less violent crime than America? Probably. Bet that factors into life expectancy! Does that factor into healthcare quality? No. Does Sweden have a more homogeneous population, which is therefore at risk of less health complications? (Think installing software on a PC vs. a Mac. There's a lot more combinations and therefore more unpredictable hereditary conditions in the US.) Probably. Bet that factors into life expectancy! Does that factor into healthcare quality? No. Stop comparing raw numbers if you aren't going to factor into socioeconomic/political/geographical considerations. If that's not possible (which I know hasn't been properly done yet), then make your comparison based on a qualitative study. Those are out there. Go use them.
I have to agree with you that life expectancy is not a very good measurement for comparisson of health care. There are far too many factors that have an impact on it.
However, you cannot neglect the infant mortality rates. It is foolish to state that the deffinition of a livebirth is the sole contributor for an infant mortality rate that's over 150% higher than the rate in Sweden. Especially because Sweden's deffinition of a livebirth is far closer to the American one than most other European countries.
And "physicians per 1000 people" is an absolutely valid indicator.
From your post I also have the feeling that you missed the discrepancy of the expenditure on health care. That's where the US fails extremely.
You are right that statistics are no perfectly comparable, but they cannot be fully neglected like you seem to suggest. I also hope that you do not agree with twoliveanddie, whose post is utterly wrong and a perfect example of ignorance.
p.s./off topic How does a heterogeneous population represent a health risk? From my modest knowledge of biology I recall that actually a highly homogeneous population leads to a high risk of hereditary conditions - something that is not the case in Sweden, but in some parts of the US:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 25 2010 05:55 ggrrg wrote:p.s./off topic How does a heterogeneous population represent a health risk? From my modest knowledge of biology I recall that actually a highly homogeneous population leads to a high risk of hereditary conditions - something that is not the case in Sweden, but in some parts of the US: + Show Spoiler +
Just to comment on your last point, which is extremely not relevant - just because something is legal means that it is the norm.
I imagine very few people marry their cousins in those states - and those that do probably would have sex with them whether it were legal or not.
|
On March 25 2010 05:06 Jibba wrote:
You could probably make a case about the physicians, but I don't know how to research it either way. For instance, healthcare reform/socialized medicine isn't going to change the cost of going to med school, etc.
I'm in agreement with the rest though. Like I posted earlier, this is primarily about costs and making sure there's a sustainable model for the coming decades. Is the Swedish system better than ours? Probably. Is it because we have dumbass doctors who don't know how to deliver babies properly? No.
I'm still pro public option, I'm just anti shitty statistics.
What really needs to be done for sustainability is make the health industry non-profit. Health insurance companies retain thousands of people in call centers, doing nothing all day but denying people of service that they should provide. AFAIK this bill has some provisions to prevent that, but the insurance companies will still largely be trying to provide as little care as possible.
The problem of retaining these denier employees is that no benefit to society is generated, nothing tangible is produced, it just goes towards the bottom line of profit for these companies, it is not economically efficient.
I find it amazing that people in the US find this behavior even remotely acceptable for a developed country.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 25 2010 05:55 ggrrg wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2010 04:43 Jibba wrote:On March 25 2010 04:06 Integra wrote:On March 25 2010 03:41 KwarK wrote:On March 25 2010 03:05 twoliveanddie wrote:
sorry to say, but the USA is falling down to the level of canada, falling down to the level of sweden and the UK and any other nation that has national healthcare. Sweden outperforms the US in pretty much every measurable healthcare factor and spends far less to do so. Falling up to the level of Sweden? Health:USA: Life expectancy :078.1 Infant mortality rate : 6.7 Physicians per 1000 people:2.4 Sweden: Life expectancy :81.0 Infant mortality rate :2.5 Physicians per 1000 people: 3.6 Cost:USA Per capita expenditure on health (USD) 7,290 Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP 16.0 Sweden : Per capita expenditure on health (USD) 3,323 Healthcare costs as a percent of GDP 9.1 Here is an illustration to what USA is spending and what they are actually getting compared to other countries. Goddamnit people, we've been over this. Infant mortality rate stats are bullshit because countries like Sweden have different standards of what a livebirth is. The US standard is more rigorous and thus results in a higher number. Life expectancy is even more complicated, because people have an entire life time to make the numbers meaningless. Do people in Sweden have a better diet than most Americans? Probably. Bet that factors into life expectancy! Does that factor into healthcare quality? No. Does Sweden have less violent crime than America? Probably. Bet that factors into life expectancy! Does that factor into healthcare quality? No. Does Sweden have a more homogeneous population, which is therefore at risk of less health complications? (Think installing software on a PC vs. a Mac. There's a lot more combinations and therefore more unpredictable hereditary conditions in the US.) Probably. Bet that factors into life expectancy! Does that factor into healthcare quality? No. Stop comparing raw numbers if you aren't going to factor into socioeconomic/political/geographical considerations. If that's not possible (which I know hasn't been properly done yet), then make your comparison based on a qualitative study. Those are out there. Go use them. I have to agree with you that life expectancy is not a very good measurement for comparisson of health care. There are far too many factors that have an impact on it. However, you cannot neglect the infant mortality rates. It is foolish to state that the deffinition of a livebirth is the sole contributor for an infant mortality rate that's over 150% higher than the rate in Sweden. Especially because Sweden's deffinition of a livebirth is far closer to the American one than most other European countries. Like I said before, by far the number one cause of infant mortality are specific birthing situations like premature births, underweight, etc. Those are most often products of things like teen pregnancy, poor health practices during the pregnancy, etc. The fact that the rate of these things occurring in the US is higher than many other countries is not a product of poor healthcare coverage, but also endemic societal issues. Those needs to be fixed, but nationalized healthcare probably won't do it. Does that make up the entire discrepancy? I don't know, but neither of us know enough to say whether it would or not.
In whatever situation you might call a "normal" pregnancy and birth, very, very, very, very, very few people still die in any modern European/American/Asian country.
From your post I also have the feeling that you missed the discrepancy of the expenditure on health care. That's where the US fails extremely.
If you'd please be kind and read my other 32424242 posts in this thread, you'd see that I've continually talked about the cost issue. I even posted earlier on this exact same infant mortality rate/mortality rate/cancer rate issue. It hasn't escaped me, I just don't like repeating myself.
p.s./off topic How does a heterogeneous population represent a health risk? From my modest knowledge of biology I recall that actually a highly homogeneous population leads to a high risk of hereditary conditions - something that is not the case in Sweden, but in some parts of the US. Incest aside, it means the health problems are predictable and readily treatable. Diverse population means the range is much larger. You'll get people with completely varying weaknesses and strengths. In the case of something like infection or transmitted disease, of course it's better to have a diverse population with greater ability to resist, but we're just talking about the chances of developing something. Cancers, glaucomas, etc.
|
On March 25 2010 03:05 twoliveanddie wrote:
its a sad sad day for the USA. this healthcare bill is a big mistake.
if I break my ankle while playing football with my friends, I totally expect to pay for it. I don't expect anyone else to pay for the treatment to heal my ankle.
and knowing that I will pay for these treatments helps me become a more careful and safe person because I know that it will cost me.
if I get the common cold or the flu, I totally expect to pay for any and all medicine to help me get better.
knowing that I will pay for these medicines will obviously help me learn to be a more clean and sanitary person.
regardless of the injuries or health issues that i have, I don't want someone else paying for my treatments.
----------
on the other side,
if I am a doctor and I have my own business and office or I work for a hospital's business, I totally expect to be paid for my services. why else would I become a doctor and do what I love to do.
I expect my patients to be able to pay for my services.
if they can't pay then sorry, i can't treat.
if someone is in a car accident and the ambulance is called and they are rushed into the emergency room. they get a bill for the services that the doctors and nurses provided them.
everyone gets a bill. some bills are paid via a person's insurance, some are paid out of pocket. but everyone gets a bill
everyone gets a bill
the service is NOT FREE
--------------
if in 4 years, 36 million US citizens (who can't afford health insurance) are automatically covered by the healthcare bill, who is paying for their doctor bills?
(remember these people can't afford health insurance.
these people would be paying out of pocket for their treatments.)
who is paying for their doctor bills?
who is paying for their treatments?
obviously the rest of us will pay for them. the ones who do work, the ones who do make money will be paying.
in higher taxes.
in reduced wages.
in a lower standard of living.
------------------
its a sad sad day for the U.S.A.
sorry to say, but the USA is falling down to the level of canada, falling down to the level of sweden and the UK and any other nation that has national healthcare. It was really my grandma's fault she had cancer and developed a staff infection at the hospital while her immune system was weak from the radiation. /sarcasm
No amount of micro is going to get you out of that situation. It is NOT your fault and shouldn't be treated as such
|
Going to be a long night in the Senate also making the news the brother of a congressman had his gas line cut after a Tea Party activist posted his home address online, and some members of the Senate have requested extra security due to death threats.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Good luck Jibba. It's common for the thread to cycle through the same set of topics every 4-5 pages or so. Here's some food for thought though.
It is exceedingly complicated, and there is no simple answer to the problem of how to acquire, allocate, and coordinate resources to provide quality healthcare optimally in a place so geographically, socially, and ethnically diverse as the United States. Seemingly simple suggestions like removing the profit motive for health providing organizations means a whole new system for making a large number of decisions will be developed to replace it. If we, the US are to look abroad for a model to emulate, there is danger in copying methods that do not map well to the US society. Blind emulation is likely to bring many unexpected consequences for better or for worse. Any change in the US is also hampered by vested political and economic interests.
However, I think we can look at Massachusetts in this year or next year to get a good idea of some of the repercussions and benefits.
|
Republicans manage to get another vote on the bill again, expected to pass this afternoon.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 25 2010 07:45 TanGeng wrote:
Good luck Jibba. It's common for the thread to cycle through the same set of topics every 4-5 pages or so. Here's some food for thought though. Now this is something I'd like to someone do research on. :O
It is exceedingly complicated, and there is no simple answer to the problem of how to acquire, allocate, and coordinate resources to provide quality healthcare optimally in a place so geographically, socially, and ethnically diverse as the United States. Seemingly simple suggestions like removing the profit motive for health providing organizations means a whole new system for making a large number of decisions will be developed to replace it. If we, the US are to look abroad for a model to emulate, there is danger in copying methods that do not map well to the US society. Blind emulation is likely to bring many unexpected consequences for better or for worse. Any change in the US is also hampered by vested political and economic interests.
However, I think we can look at Massachusetts in this year or next year to get a good idea of some of the repercussions and benefits.
Total agreement.
|
|
|
With the 'most popular' news channel in America posting stuff like this to their main page, how could anyone think we have biased media coverage?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I'm sure it has been mentioned before, but keep in mind, even looking beyond basic cultural differences, it isn't fair to compare American systems of governance and social programs to countries the size of Texas with not much more in population.
|
i watched a program yesterday and wrote a big post/thread about it. someone advised that i come to this thread and look at it. i'm going to post what i initially wrote then read some of this thread. i only have 1 hour internet a day so bare with me :3
Warning, this is long and FILLED with questions that you may want to answer if you're able to (i'm really stupid so you might aswell take a shot). I'll number some of the areas where there are questions # to make it easier to respond to.
Britain's Five Trillion Pound Nightmare
My friend showed me this documentary (opinion piece) on channel4 (british tv). The link will come up if you google for Britain's Five Trillion Pound Nightmare and is on youtube and channel4 website and possibly google video.
It stated that britain is 4+ trillion in debt and that this is the fault of overspending in the public sector (specifically the NHS/healthservice) and also the size of the public sector in relation to the private sector. It was explained that the public sector in britain is far larger than that in communist china (#1 how is this comparison relevent?) and because of this wealth is not being "created", but merely recycled around and around: #2 public sector doesn't create wealth - a lollypop lady doesnt bring money into the country, a nurse doesnt bring money into the country, etc. whereas exporting manufactured goods (private sector) does.
I can quite easily agree that the NHS is insanely disorganised and money is not being spent efficiently (and IMO thats as far as the issue goes!). But the major opinion of the piece (presented, of course, as fact) was that we would be wholly better off with a) privatised healthcare and services b) no taxes at all!
In the latter part of the program the presenter flew to Hong Kong and talked to a top businessman there who had apparently helped transform the economy and created a booming and healthy place to live. Of course, they pretty much painted a halo over his head but I was like "this guy is probably one of the most abusive and evil people in the world" #3. Anyway, they showed lots of scenes of huge florishing Hong Kong skyscrapers and said it was all because private companies - and individual working people - #4 were able to prosper with minimal government control (there are no/few taxes over there and little public sector I think). They said Hong Kong's income per head was greater than the UKs iirc.
All whilst this was happening, infact throughout most of the show, loud alarm bells were ringing in my ears. #5 Weren't there like shitloads of outrage and documentaries made in the USA about how no lower class people can afford healthcare because it was all private? Wasn't that like the biggest issue in USA recently with everyone lobbying for public healthcare (idk i dont watch the news)? Why is Hong Kong being portrayed as like a dream utopia for having no taxes, when I'm pretty sure there are some bad sides to the story they're not letting on about (later when I came online I read that Hong Kong has the largest inequality of wealth distribution in the world - hey I *was* right??).
Well anyway, the reason I'm making this thread is because me and my friend know N O T H I N G about politics and economy stuff and spent like 2 hours today spewing crap at one another. IIRC my friend wanted to know things like..............
#6 Why do they take £500 out of my wage to spend it on other people and not give me what I need because of stupid public sector systems and disorganisation? Why can't I keep that money and spend it the way _I_ want, on private services? I have been waiting 5 months for a medical procedure with the NHS that I could have had done privately if I wasn't taxed so much.
#7 How is money going to come into the country if we don't export anything? We don't manufacture anything here...it all gets imported or outsources to cheaper labour.. (later we read online that britain's major exports are drugs and technical computer stuff, so we do have "some" exports)
#8 If private companies were taxed less then they could provide their product for cheaper and _I_ would be better off because of it! Burger in the shop is £2.20 because the shop is forced to charge us £.20 tax ontop of it.
#9 I work in the public health sector, and because everything is standardised I have no opportunity to get a pay raise. You have to work like 8 years in the NHS to reach the top band of Nursing salary...which is like 30k/yr. If health sector was private then I could earn more, right?
My friend had lots of other questions and since I'm not very eloquent all I could really think was "its complicated, you can't just watch this 1-2 hour opinion piece and go along with it, because you don't know any better. there's another side to the story and we need to find out what it is before getting all excited and start claiming someone else's opinion to be our own."
So the point of this thread is ... can you confront some of the things brought up by this program and by my friend? (#10 maybe link to another documentary on the subject?). Just to get us started so we can be more aware about the flip side of issues like these and not be in danger of getting dragged along by the first bandwagon that rolls past us.
You know, even to say "britain has 4 trillion debt" to me is meaningless because, for starters, maybe other countries OWE US 4 trillion aswell (not to mention the first website link I clicked on said the 4 trillion was just one of many estimates and was also inclusive of 1+ trillion loaned to a particular bank, which is, by the way, a private organisation?)
#11 Just one more little thing: my friend is from an ex-communist country and i THINK might get "large private firms/monopolies" mixed up or confused with "large government/public sector firms".
I'm honestly not sure but i think the documentary basically portrayed public sector stuff as having absolutely no worth (education, infrastructure, regulation, police, health, equal opportunities) and as simply being an abuse of the public's money (politicians steal from you via taxes and you will be better off if you have the choice to give your money to private organisations instead).
So coming from a communist country where the government really did fuck them about a lot, I can see where it'd be possible to get the impression that government spending is bad for the people, rather than good for the people.
The way i see it is that public sector exists BECAUSE private organisations are abusive and unfair....the alternative to shitty public sector is NOT more (abusive) privatisation, but is instead BETTER public sector.
Y'know....aim of the NHS is to provide healthcare to everyone...aim of privatisation is to abuse the shit out of the public for profit.
Anyway...if none of my shit makes any sense to you, watch the program (1 hour 30 maybe) and respond in your own way :3
|
On December 12 2010 20:58 luckyseven wrote:
#6 Why do they take £500 out of my wage to spend it on other people and not give me what I need because of stupid public sector systems and disorganisation? Why can't I keep that money and spend it the way _I_ want, on private services? I have been waiting 5 months for a medical procedure with the NHS that I could have had done privately if I wasn't taxed so much.
This one is simple. He is assuming that the money that he would have had, had it not been taxed, wouldn't already be spent on something else he wanted.
On December 12 2010 20:58 luckyseven wrote:
#8 If private companies were taxed less then they could provide their product for cheaper and _I_ would be better off because of it! Burger in the shop is £2.20 because the shop is forced to charge us £.20 tax ontop of it.
That's part of it. The consumer is the one who pays for everything. You pay for the people who work at the store, the lighting, the packaging, etc. Every single expense account on a company chart of accounts is divided up and spread equally over every item in the store so it is all paid for. The labor cost to do paper work for taxes or to hire new employees, every expense. Sales tax are obviously paid by the consumer, but the business tax isn't. Profit tax is an asymptote, the more you try to cover the tax with more profit, the more tax you pay. This is an unavoidable expense which can't be passed onto the consumer. If taxes raise, the company has to pull back on its other expenses, namely labor.
On December 12 2010 20:58 luckyseven wrote:
#9 I work in the public health sector, and because everything is standardised I have no opportunity to get a pay raise. You have to work like 8 years in the NHS to reach the top band of Nursing salary...which is like 30k/yr. If health sector was private then I could earn more, right?
That depends.
Some of your questions are incredibly complicated, so I'm not going to spend hours answering them.
Now about healthcare, I always found it interesting how the US is always compared to Canada for healthcare costs, yet they ignore many important things. Namely US care is so fucking expensive because we are the ones coming up with every new drug under the sun, or a brand new type of care etc. These research costs all have to be paid when someone wants to partake in the new breakthrough. Canada specifically has the "mark to market" law, which means that any prescription purchased can't be sold at a profit. So the question is, why the hell would anyone sell any prescriptions to Canada? It's because all that profit they aren't making in Canada, they just make in the US. Now include research into things that are rejected for sale are also included when one finally passes. Is it any wonder why the US has such high healthcare costs, we are paying for entire countries. The same can be said about the military. What would happen if a ton of these costs were shifted from the US and onto their respective countries, what would those countries expectations be then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fc/Life_expectancy_vs_spending_OECD.png)
![[image loading]](http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kur4pn8KQZ1qa0uujo1_500.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/hypocrisy_032510_20100325_133554.jpg)
