no. as you can see in my previous post. its around 84% that have health insurance.
by no means am I saying the system is perfect. and who are you quoting? it certainly wasnt me.
in many cases, with health insurance, many do have access to the best, however. please dont generalize my statements.
Exactly. You don't think 47 million people in a country of 300 million is a substantial minority in our country? (47 million comes about to be 16 percent). I think 47 million people is far too many for a "successful" health insurance policy.
You're saying the system isn't perfect. I agree. I think the system can and needs to be improved. As tragic as it would be if 2% of the country didn't have health insurance, it would be hard for me to say at that point that there wasn't value in the standard way of doing things. But 1 and 6 is quite a different story.
You yourself said that it was "medical innovation" that should be the barometer of the medical care a country affords its' citizens. You do not believe the better barometer is how many people receive such care, and how good the care really is that they do receive?
I'm open for any and all ideas in providing "good care" to all. but when you start to involve the government things can get sloppy very quickly.
so much red tape would be created. Trillions upon Trillions would be spent. and quality of care would decrease.
I agree the government is not always the answer, although it sometimes is. That's always why I don't think the answer is a strictly government-run program. But as it is right now, the system is not cutting it. How can the private sector be successfully handling the situation if so many people go without health insurance? I don't think it's that all those people don't want to be taken care of if and when they are ill, injured, or dying. So, there's already red tape. Trillions have already been spent. Quality of care, the cost of care and accessibility of care has decreased as well. From 2000 to 2007, we saw a 78 PERCENT increase in the cost of health insurance. All these facts seem to show, at least to me, that the 'way things are' right now, with lax regulation, is not cutting it.
Exactly. You don't think 47 million people in a country of 300 million is a substantial minority in our country? (47 million comes about to be 16 percent). I think 47 million people is far too many for a "successful" health insurance policy.
You're saying the system isn't perfect. I agree. I think the system can and needs to be improved. As tragic as it would be if 2% of the country didn't have health insurance, it would be hard for me to say at that point that there wasn't value in the standard way of doing things. But 1 and 6 is quite a different story.
You yourself said that it was "medical innovation" that should be the barometer of the medical care a country affords its' citizens. You do not believe the better barometer is how many people receive such care, and how good the care really is that they do receive?
ok, so what is you solution? UHC? how is it funded and who pays for it?
lets say the government says it will insure those who aren't offered it from their employer. great. guess what every business in their country will start doing. dropping insurance.
there is no easy solution to this but all I hear from many on the left is that we need healthcare for all! its a human right!
ok, so what is you solution? UHC? how is it funded and who pays for it?
lets say the government says it will insure those who aren't offered it from their employer. great. guess what every business in their country will start doing. dropping insurance.
there is no easy solution to this but all I hear from many on the left is that we need healthcare for all! its a human right!
The very first thing you do is some regulation. You make it illegal for health insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Such a high number of those without health insurance in this country comes from the fact that people with pre-existing conditions try to get health insurance and are rejected for the sole reason that it would be very costly to pay for their continuous treatment. After all, these are businesses, and why would they accept a woman with breast cancer and a reject a vibrant 55-year old man in good health? It costs more to treat the woman! They will lose money. That's what the free market means in this situation. In the car manufacturing business, sometimes it means a less expensive coat of paint. Here, it means somebody's dead.
So you make such anti-discrimination the law. That's step 1. You mention that if the government starts giving away health insurance, competition will decrease and quality will diminish. Where have I once said we "give away" health insurance? You need to make it affordable for practically every American. That might not get us down to every man and woman in the country having health insurance, but it may get us down to 98% of Americans (an acceptable majority) vs. 84% (an unacceptable majority). You can do this through encouraging more businesses to cover employees with tax breaks and credits, as well as creating an affordable government-run system that acts as a possible alternate route for those who cannot get coverage through their place of business. That way, you have an affordable option for those who are unemployed, but businesses continue with their private coverage due to incentives. A give-and-take that might work. Although I disagree with him on some issues, in the case of health care I'm pretty close in line with Obama's plan. It's one of the reasons I voted for him; I like the middle-ground he staked between left and right.
Children are simple. Mandatory coverage, government-run if necessary. It's worth the dollars we would spend, don't you think? That's nearly 10 million of 47 million.
But I'm the first to admit I don't have all the answers, but I realize that something stinks when I see it. These are just some ideas; I think my first step is the most important and possibly the easiest to accomplish. I think if we do that and insure children, we can drop that number from 47 million to 13-15 million. I'm going to have trouble finding affordable health coverage if I need to change from my admittedly shitty insurance provider because I have had mono. Imagine if I had Hodgkin's lymphoma?
If these ideas don't work we have to try something else. What we don't do is leave things as they are.
The very first thing you do is some regulation. You make it illegal for health insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Such a high number of those without health insurance in this country comes from the fact that people with pre-existing conditions try to get health insurance and are rejected for the sole reason that it would be very costly to pay for their continuous treatment. After all, these are businesses, and why would they accept a woman with breast cancer and a reject a vibrant 55-year old man in good health? It costs more to treat the woman! They will lose money. That's what the free market means in this situation. In the car manufacturing business, sometimes it means a less expensive coat of paint. Here, it means somebody's dead.
So you make such anti-discrimination the law. That's step 1. You mention that if the government starts giving away health insurance, competition will decrease and quality will diminish. Where have I once said we "give away" health insurance? You need to make it affordable for practically every American. That might not get us down to every man and woman in the country having health insurance, but it may get us down to 98% of Americans (an acceptable majority) vs. 84% (an unacceptable majority). You can do this through encouraging more businesses to cover employees with tax breaks and credits, as well as creating an affordable government-run system that acts as a possible alternate route for those who cannot get coverage through their place of business. That way, you have an affordable option for those who are unemployed, but businesses continue with their private coverage due to incentives. A give-and-take that might work. Although I disagree with him on some issues, in the case of health care I'm pretty close in line with Obama's plan. It's one of the reasons I voted for him; I like the middle-ground he staked between left and right.
Children are simple. Mandatory coverage, government-run if necessary. It's worth the dollars we would spend, don't you think? That's nearly 10 million of 47 million.
But I'm the first to admit I don't have all the answers, but I realize that something stinks when I see it. These are just some ideas; I think my first step is the most important and possibly the easiest to accomplish. I think if we do that and insure children, we can drop that number from 47 million to 13-15 million. I'm going to have trouble finding affordable health coverage if I need to change from my admittedly shitty insurance provider because I have had mono. Imagine if I had Hodgkin's lymphoma?
If these ideas don't work we have to try something else. What we don't do is leave things as they are.
excellent ideas. I was along the lines of thinking of some kind of government subsidy. but overall I like your ideas.
and healthcare for children is a no-brainer.
the problem still exists, however, with the increased cost most of this would incur. sure its money well spent but raising taxes is not a good idea IMO. I would start by shuffling some of the money spent on defense and other areas. but getting in a budget debate is for another day
care to post them these reports? and the report you posted above sites chronically ill patients.
none of these reports suggest American does not have the best doctors, technology, and quality of care in the world. it only suggests some do not have adequate access to it. which is not what I'm arguing.
I already posted them.
You added the element of 'best doctors and technology'. The question was about health care, the reports do show that the US is not number one and not close either, like you claimed.
Also, the people in that survey are indeed chronically ill patients (hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, lung problems, cancer, or depression). These are serious and common conditions and are certainly relevant when we're discussing the quality of healthcare.
In the US (which you claim has one of the best if not the best health care system in the world) people who are chronically ill:
- are more likely to forgo care because of cost (like commy pointed out)
- experience the highest rates of medical errors
- experience the highest rates care coordination problems
- experience the highest rates of high out-of-pocket costs
#More than half (54%) of U.S. patients did not get recommended care, fill prescriptions, or see a doctor when sick because of costs, versus 7 percent to 36 percent in the other countries.
#About one-third of U.S. patients—the highest proportion in the survey—experienced medical errors, including delays in learning about abnormal lab test results.
#Similarly, one-third of U.S. patients encountered poorly coordinated care, including medical records not available during an appointment or duplicated tests.
# he U.S. stands out for patient costs, with 41 percent reporting they spent more than $1,000 on out-of-pocket costs in the past year. U.K. and Dutch patients were most protected against such costs.
# Only one-quarter (26%) of U.S. and Canadian patients reported same-day access to doctors when sick, and one-fourth or more reported long waits. About half or more of Dutch (60%), New Zealand, (54%), and U.K. (48%) patients were able to get same-day appointments.
# A majority of respondents across the eight countries saw room for improvement. Chronically ill adults in the U.S. were the most negative; one-third said the health care system needs a complete overhaul.
roughly 47 million americans, or 16%, do NOT have healthcare insurance. that means the 84% or over 250 million Americans have access to some of the greatest doctors and technology available in the world.
Your argument rests on the fact (well, your word actually since you've offered no proof whatsoever) that the US has the best doctors and technology. Again, good doctors and technology says little about the general state of health care in the US. You say 84% has access to the greatest doctors and technologies. I bet the US has shitty doctors as well, and even more mediocre or average doctors. So 84% has access to some very shitty doctors, mediocre, average, good and excellent doctors.
are you serious? sigh ok.
my point is that its nearly impossible to have a "free" socialized healthcare system for 300,000,000 people and expect it to provide a high level of quality care.
its much easier and practical for a country like Sweden to do that with only 9,000,000 people.
I don't see why it's nearly impossible. Anyway, I'm not pushing for a socialised healthcare system in the US. I'm merely responding to the notion that the US has the greatest system in the world, or close to the greatest.
You added the element of 'best doctors and technology'. The question was about health care, the reports do show that the US is not number one and not close either, like you claimed.
the reports show nothing of the sort. it mainly points out that people have high out of pocket costs and some have limited access to care because lack of insurance. which is not what I'm debating.
Your argument rests on the fact (well, your word actually since you've offered no proof whatsoever) that the US has the best doctors and technology. Again, good doctors and technology says little about the general state of health care in the US. You say 84% has access to the greatest doctors and technologies. I bet the US has shitty doctors as well, and even more mediocre or average doctors. So 84% has access to some very shitty doctors, mediocre, average, good and excellent doctors.
I agree, there are certainly bad doctors. not debating that either. you are obviously not American and completely ignorant to the high quality of some of our Healthcare institutions.
John Hopskins
Mayo Clinic
U of Chicago
UCLA Medical Center
Massachusetts General
Duke Medical Center
I dont have a WHO ranking for you but its common knowledge to know the high quality of these institutions. are they the absolute best in the world? dont know. but near the top for sure.
Anyway, I'm not pushing for a socialised healthcare system in the US. I'm merely responding to the notion that the US has the greatest system in the world, or close to the greatest.
It clearly hasn't.
this is your problem. I'm not saying we have the greatest "system"
I'm saying we are close to the forefront in medical technology, innovation, and respected medical institutions.
the reports show nothing of the sort. it mainly points out that people have high out of pocket costs and some have limited access to care because lack of insurance. which is not what I'm debating.
You have offered nothing. You said the US has the best or close to the best healthcare in the world. This is opinion and you've showed nothing to back up your statement.
The articles, researches and surveys I posted show that the US is not one of the best or close to the best. They made lists and on none of the is the US even close to the top. All of the source I gave you deal with healthcare, which is exactly what we are debating.
The last survey which you ignored mentions medical errors, care coordination problems, access to doctors... not just costs.
The other two sources look at how good a system works based on 'health outcomes, responsiveness and financing.'
I agree, there are certainly bad doctors. not debating that either. you are obviously not American and completely ignorant to the high quality of some of our Healthcare institutions.
John Hopskins
Mayo Clinic
U of Chicago
UCLA Medical Center
Massachusetts General
Duke Medical Center
Again, there are hospitals that don't have such high quality service either. Unless you can show me all 84% get their treatment at those medical institutions, I don't see the point of posting this. It's like saying there are good doctors. Those are not indicators of a good healthcare system.
I dont have a WHO ranking for you but its common knowledge to know the high quality of these institutions. are they the absolute best in the world? dont know. but near the top for sure.
Commy was talking about healthcare in the Western world. Every survey or list I've seen so far does not place the US at the top.
this is your problem. I'm not saying we have the greatest "system"
I'm saying we are close to the forefront in medical technology, innovation, and respected medical institutions.
We were talking about systems. You responded to commy who said the US has one of the worst systems of the western world. It's certainly isn't my problem. My guess is it's hard to argue facts and you're trying to steer the debate into another direction.
You said:
"um worst in terms of what? quality of care? we are actually the best on earth."
This was based on a completely irrelevant list.
Since then you have not once argued commy's original statement i.e. about the system. You ignored the 'system' and turned the debate into one about hospitals, doctors and technology. All very important in healthcare, but it says very little of the overall quality of care in the US.
You have offered nothing. You said the US has the best or close to the best healthcare in the world. This is opinion and you've showed nothing to back up your statement.
The articles, researches and surveys I posted show that the US is not one of the best or close to the best. They made lists and on none of the is the US even close to the top. All of the source I gave you deal with healthcare, which is exactly what we are debating.
The last survey which you ignored mentions medical errors, care coordination problems, access to doctors... not just costs.
The other two sources look at how good a system works based on 'health outcomes, responsiveness and financing.'
Again, there are hospitals that don't have such high quality service either. Unless you can show me all 84% get their treatment at those medical institutions, I don't see the point of posting this. It's like saying there are good doctors. Those are not indicators of a good healthcare system.
Commy was talking about healthcare in the Western world. Every survey or list I've seen so far does not place the US at the top.
We were talking about systems. You responded to commy who said the US has one of the worst systems of the western world. It's certainly isn't my problem. My guess is it's hard to argue facts and you're trying to steer the debate into another direction.
You said:
"um worst in terms of what? quality of care? we are actually the best on earth."
This was based on a completely irrelevant list.
Since then you have not once argued commy's original statement i.e. about the system. You ignored the 'system' and turned the debate into one about hospitals, doctors and technology. All very important in healthcare, but it says very little of the overall quality of care in the US.
again, I'm not debating about the system. the system could use work for sure. I asked him to elaborate on what he meant, and he hasnt been around or cared to. no biggie.
I'm merely talking about the high level of quality that exists in American medical institutions, in terms of research, doctors, and technology. you have continued to show your ignorance in admitting it exists.
again, I'm not debating about the system. the system could use work for sure. I asked him to elaborate on what he meant, and he hasnt been around or cared to. no biggie.
Our healthcare system is one of the worst among developed nations. Its broken, its costly, it has more red tape than many socialized European countries. That's if you can afford it.
So you're not talking about the system, fine. So then do you agree with this? That the system is one of the worst among developed nations, that it's broken (could use some work for sure, eh?) and costly (which is already proven).
I'm merely talking about the high level of quality that exists in American medical institutions, in terms of research, doctors, and technology. you have continued to show your ignorance in admitting it exists.
Just as long as you realise that that high level of quality is not the norm, and that the system often prevent people from benefiting from the high quality care... I guess it's fine.
And just for shits and giggles:
"Even if you actually had a real list that judges hospitals on the care they provide, it's still doesn't say much about the general health care in a country."
"Yes, America has some of the best doctors and technologies. That doesn't say much about health care in general, though. It simply means that the US has some excellent doctors and technologies."
"Again, there are hospitals that don't have such high quality service either."
I repeatedly mentioned that I was talking in general terms. I also admitted that the US has some of the best doctors, technologies and medical institutions.
Next time you want to accuse me of ignorance I suggest you open your fucking eyes or learn how to read.
edit: the high level of quality that exists in American medical institutions, in terms of research, doctors, and technology does not mean US is the best, or close to the best in terms of quality of care. I remember you said the US had the best quality of care on earth.
So you're not talking about the system, fine. So then do you agree with this? That the system is one of the worst among developed nations, that it's broken (could use some work for sure, eh?) and costly (which is already proven).
Just as long as you realise that that high level of quality is not the norm, and that the system often prevent people from benefiting from the high quality care... I guess it's fine.
And just for shits and giggles:
"Even if you actually had a real list that judges hospitals on the care they provide, it's still doesn't say much about the general health care in a country."
"Yes, America has some of the best doctors and technologies. That doesn't say much about health care in general, though. It simply means that the US has some excellent doctors and technologies."
"Again, there are hospitals that don't have such high quality service either."
I repeatedly mentioned that I was talking in general terms. I also admitted that the US has some of the best doctors, technologies and medical institutions.
Next time you want to accuse me of ignorance I suggest you open your fucking eyes or learn how to read.
so you agree with me then. good. looks like I'm not the one who should open his eyes or learn how to read. next time, try to keep up. might save yourself some aggravation.
so you agree with me then. good. looks like I'm not the one who should open his eyes or learn how to read. next time, try to keep up. might save yourself some aggravation.
Posting a list of hospitals that do great on the internets and then based on that list say that the US has the "best quality of care in the world" is ignorant.
If you had opened your eyes or were able to read you would not have made such a ridiculously stupid mistake, and not made yourself look like a complete fool.
Anyway, you forgot to answer my question (perhaps you didn't see it or maybe you were not able to read it).
"So then do you agree with this? That the system is one of the worst among developed nations, that it's broken (could use some work for sure, eh?) and costly (which is already proven)."
I guess I'm not seeing the relevance of quality of hospitals in the United States as it pertains to the need for affordable health coverage. I mean, let's say the U.S. has some of the best hospitals in the world (which is an assumption I'm making, but an assumption that I think is a fair one). So, let's say a relatively small, miniscule portion of the population can afford these hospitals, whether through private payment (not typical even for the uber-rich), or more likely through a comprehensive health insurance plan. So, if only a relatively miniscule portion of the general public has access to such high-paying facilities, then what's the point? I mean, although it's perfectly fair to say that there are good hospitals in the U.S., what's the point if many, if not most, don't have access to them? What's the worth of such a statistic? I mean, it's great for that portion of the population that do get in, but everyone deserves treatment.
Again, I'll draw the analogy to a car, which is admittedly a simplistic analogy. You know, someone picks up a brand new BMW or Toyota, while someone buys a shitty used Chevy. In the end, a car is a car. The consequences of the gap between health coverage is much graver than it is for buying a car. Without being overly dramatic, we're talking life and death, and I'm uncertain if I'm willing to forsake the lives of thousands, if not millions, who had preventable or treatable illnesses for the sake of a regulation-free, "free market" health insurance system. It's just failing at its' primary objective, which is to save lives.
I guess I'm not seeing the relevance of quality of hospitals in the United States as it pertains to the need for affordable health coverage. I mean, let's say the U.S. has some of the best hospitals in the world (which is an assumption I'm making, but an assumption that I think is a fair one). So, let's say a relatively small, miniscule portion of the population can afford these hospitals, whether through private payment (not typical even for the uber-rich), or more likely through a comprehensive health insurance plan. So, if only a relatively miniscule portion of the general public has access to such high-paying facilities, then what's the point? I mean, although it's perfectly fair to say that there are good hospitals in the U.S., what's the point if many, if not most, don't have access to them? What's the worth of such a statistic? I mean, it's great for that portion of the population that do get in, but everyone deserves treatment.
That's exactly the way i see it too. Before living here, i worked in the Health Service in Australia. They run on a medicare system and people can elect to have private health cover if they choose to do so. No one is denied medical attention.
There was a survey done recently, (posted here in the last few months i'll see if i can find a link somewhere), that showed that Australia was in the top half a dozen countries in the world as far as healthiest countries go. USA ranked very poorly at number 11. It's fine to have some of the best hospitals and doctors in the world, but unless everyone has access to them, it's not a statistic to be proud of. Australia may not have the quality of hospitals that i see here, but there people are more healthy, and while lifestyle obviously comes into effect there, the fact that people do have access to the health system, even if they are poor, makes a big difference imo.
Comments
Exactly. You don't think 47 million people in a country of 300 million is a substantial minority in our country? (47 million comes about to be 16 percent). I think 47 million people is far too many for a "successful" health insurance policy.
You're saying the system isn't perfect. I agree. I think the system can and needs to be improved. As tragic as it would be if 2% of the country didn't have health insurance, it would be hard for me to say at that point that there wasn't value in the standard way of doing things. But 1 and 6 is quite a different story.
You yourself said that it was "medical innovation" that should be the barometer of the medical care a country affords its' citizens. You do not believe the better barometer is how many people receive such care, and how good the care really is that they do receive?
I agree the government is not always the answer, although it sometimes is. That's always why I don't think the answer is a strictly government-run program. But as it is right now, the system is not cutting it. How can the private sector be successfully handling the situation if so many people go without health insurance? I don't think it's that all those people don't want to be taken care of if and when they are ill, injured, or dying. So, there's already red tape. Trillions have already been spent. Quality of care, the cost of care and accessibility of care has decreased as well. From 2000 to 2007, we saw a 78 PERCENT increase in the cost of health insurance. All these facts seem to show, at least to me, that the 'way things are' right now, with lax regulation, is not cutting it.
ok, so what is you solution? UHC? how is it funded and who pays for it?
lets say the government says it will insure those who aren't offered it from their employer. great. guess what every business in their country will start doing. dropping insurance.
there is no easy solution to this but all I hear from many on the left is that we need healthcare for all! its a human right!
The very first thing you do is some regulation. You make it illegal for health insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Such a high number of those without health insurance in this country comes from the fact that people with pre-existing conditions try to get health insurance and are rejected for the sole reason that it would be very costly to pay for their continuous treatment. After all, these are businesses, and why would they accept a woman with breast cancer and a reject a vibrant 55-year old man in good health? It costs more to treat the woman! They will lose money. That's what the free market means in this situation. In the car manufacturing business, sometimes it means a less expensive coat of paint. Here, it means somebody's dead.
So you make such anti-discrimination the law. That's step 1. You mention that if the government starts giving away health insurance, competition will decrease and quality will diminish. Where have I once said we "give away" health insurance? You need to make it affordable for practically every American. That might not get us down to every man and woman in the country having health insurance, but it may get us down to 98% of Americans (an acceptable majority) vs. 84% (an unacceptable majority). You can do this through encouraging more businesses to cover employees with tax breaks and credits, as well as creating an affordable government-run system that acts as a possible alternate route for those who cannot get coverage through their place of business. That way, you have an affordable option for those who are unemployed, but businesses continue with their private coverage due to incentives. A give-and-take that might work. Although I disagree with him on some issues, in the case of health care I'm pretty close in line with Obama's plan. It's one of the reasons I voted for him; I like the middle-ground he staked between left and right.
Children are simple. Mandatory coverage, government-run if necessary. It's worth the dollars we would spend, don't you think? That's nearly 10 million of 47 million.
But I'm the first to admit I don't have all the answers, but I realize that something stinks when I see it. These are just some ideas; I think my first step is the most important and possibly the easiest to accomplish. I think if we do that and insure children, we can drop that number from 47 million to 13-15 million. I'm going to have trouble finding affordable health coverage if I need to change from my admittedly shitty insurance provider because I have had mono. Imagine if I had Hodgkin's lymphoma?
If these ideas don't work we have to try something else. What we don't do is leave things as they are.
excellent ideas. I was along the lines of thinking of some kind of government subsidy. but overall I like your ideas.
and healthcare for children is a no-brainer.
the problem still exists, however, with the increased cost most of this would incur. sure its money well spent but raising taxes is not a good idea IMO. I would start by shuffling some of the money spent on defense and other areas. but getting in a budget debate is for another day
I already posted them.
You added the element of 'best doctors and technology'. The question was about health care, the reports do show that the US is not number one and not close either, like you claimed.
Also, the people in that survey are indeed chronically ill patients (hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, lung problems, cancer, or depression). These are serious and common conditions and are certainly relevant when we're discussing the quality of healthcare.
In the US (which you claim has one of the best if not the best health care system in the world) people who are chronically ill:
- are more likely to forgo care because of cost (like commy pointed out)
- experience the highest rates of medical errors
- experience the highest rates care coordination problems
- experience the highest rates of high out-of-pocket costs
Your argument rests on the fact (well, your word actually since you've offered no proof whatsoever) that the US has the best doctors and technology. Again, good doctors and technology says little about the general state of health care in the US. You say 84% has access to the greatest doctors and technologies. I bet the US has shitty doctors as well, and even more mediocre or average doctors. So 84% has access to some very shitty doctors, mediocre, average, good and excellent doctors.
I don't see why it's nearly impossible. Anyway, I'm not pushing for a socialised healthcare system in the US. I'm merely responding to the notion that the US has the greatest system in the world, or close to the greatest.
It clearly hasn't.
naděje umírá poslední
the reports show nothing of the sort. it mainly points out that people have high out of pocket costs and some have limited access to care because lack of insurance. which is not what I'm debating.
I agree, there are certainly bad doctors. not debating that either. you are obviously not American and completely ignorant to the high quality of some of our Healthcare institutions.
John Hopskins
Mayo Clinic
U of Chicago
UCLA Medical Center
Massachusetts General
Duke Medical Center
I dont have a WHO ranking for you but its common knowledge to know the high quality of these institutions. are they the absolute best in the world? dont know. but near the top for sure.
cost is one of many reasons
this is your problem. I'm not saying we have the greatest "system"
I'm saying we are close to the forefront in medical technology, innovation, and respected medical institutions.
You have offered nothing. You said the US has the best or close to the best healthcare in the world. This is opinion and you've showed nothing to back up your statement.
The articles, researches and surveys I posted show that the US is not one of the best or close to the best. They made lists and on none of the is the US even close to the top. All of the source I gave you deal with healthcare, which is exactly what we are debating.
The last survey which you ignored mentions medical errors, care coordination problems, access to doctors... not just costs.
The other two sources look at how good a system works based on 'health outcomes, responsiveness and financing.'
Again, there are hospitals that don't have such high quality service either. Unless you can show me all 84% get their treatment at those medical institutions, I don't see the point of posting this. It's like saying there are good doctors. Those are not indicators of a good healthcare system.
Commy was talking about healthcare in the Western world. Every survey or list I've seen so far does not place the US at the top.
We were talking about systems. You responded to commy who said the US has one of the worst systems of the western world. It's certainly isn't my problem. My guess is it's hard to argue facts and you're trying to steer the debate into another direction.
You said:
"um worst in terms of what? quality of care? we are actually the best on earth."
This was based on a completely irrelevant list.
Since then you have not once argued commy's original statement i.e. about the system. You ignored the 'system' and turned the debate into one about hospitals, doctors and technology. All very important in healthcare, but it says very little of the overall quality of care in the US.
naděje umírá poslední
again, I'm not debating about the system. the system could use work for sure. I asked him to elaborate on what he meant, and he hasnt been around or cared to. no biggie.
I'm merely talking about the high level of quality that exists in American medical institutions, in terms of research, doctors, and technology. you have continued to show your ignorance in admitting it exists.
So you're not talking about the system, fine. So then do you agree with this? That the system is one of the worst among developed nations, that it's broken (could use some work for sure, eh?) and costly (which is already proven).
Just as long as you realise that that high level of quality is not the norm, and that the system often prevent people from benefiting from the high quality care... I guess it's fine.
And just for shits and giggles:
"Even if you actually had a real list that judges hospitals on the care they provide, it's still doesn't say much about the general health care in a country."
"Yes, America has some of the best doctors and technologies. That doesn't say much about health care in general, though. It simply means that the US has some excellent doctors and technologies."
"Again, there are hospitals that don't have such high quality service either."
I repeatedly mentioned that I was talking in general terms. I also admitted that the US has some of the best doctors, technologies and medical institutions.
Next time you want to accuse me of ignorance I suggest you open your fucking eyes or learn how to read.
edit: the high level of quality that exists in American medical institutions, in terms of research, doctors, and technology does not mean US is the best, or close to the best in terms of quality of care. I remember you said the US had the best quality of care on earth.
naděje umírá poslední
so you agree with me then. good. looks like I'm not the one who should open his eyes or learn how to read. next time, try to keep up. might save yourself some aggravation.
Posting a list of hospitals that do great on the internets and then based on that list say that the US has the "best quality of care in the world" is ignorant.
If you had opened your eyes or were able to read you would not have made such a ridiculously stupid mistake, and not made yourself look like a complete fool.
Anyway, you forgot to answer my question (perhaps you didn't see it or maybe you were not able to read it).
"So then do you agree with this? That the system is one of the worst among developed nations, that it's broken (could use some work for sure, eh?) and costly (which is already proven)."
naděje umírá poslední
Again, I'll draw the analogy to a car, which is admittedly a simplistic analogy. You know, someone picks up a brand new BMW or Toyota, while someone buys a shitty used Chevy. In the end, a car is a car. The consequences of the gap between health coverage is much graver than it is for buying a car. Without being overly dramatic, we're talking life and death, and I'm uncertain if I'm willing to forsake the lives of thousands, if not millions, who had preventable or treatable illnesses for the sake of a regulation-free, "free market" health insurance system. It's just failing at its' primary objective, which is to save lives.
There was a survey done recently, (posted here in the last few months i'll see if i can find a link somewhere), that showed that Australia was in the top half a dozen countries in the world as far as healthiest countries go. USA ranked very poorly at number 11. It's fine to have some of the best hospitals and doctors in the world, but unless everyone has access to them, it's not a statistic to be proud of. Australia may not have the quality of hospitals that i see here, but there people are more healthy, and while lifestyle obviously comes into effect there, the fact that people do have access to the health system, even if they are poor, makes a big difference imo.
http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/2008/04/07/health-world-countries-forbeslife-cx_avd_0408health.html