Only a fucking idiot like Punter would believe that we're *really*ranked
37th.
Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study
By John Stossel
The New York Times recently declared "the disturbing truth ... that ... the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care."
As usual, the Times editors get it wrong.
They find evidence in a 2000 World Health Organization (WHO) rating of 191 nations and a Commonwealth Fund study of wealthy nations published last May.
<script language="JavaScript"> GA_googleFillSlot("RCP_Article_Middle_300x250"); </script><script src="http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?correlator=1253318967604&output=json_html&callback=GA_googleSetAdContentsBySlotForSync&impl=s&prev_afc=0&a2ids=%2C&cids=%2C&client=ca-pub-4560167926987914&slotname=RCP_Article_Middle_300x250&page_slots=RCP_Article_Top_728x90%2CRCP_Article_Left_160x160%2CRCP_Article_Middle_300x250&cust_params=&cookie=ID%3D1138b9e52e27787d%3AT%3D1253318967%3AS%3DALNI_MZvb0Dm4WKrsCklcu6rApyXzrgK_A&cookie_enabled=1&ga_vid=659913985.1253318968&ga_sid=1253318968&ga_hid=1287665125&ga_fc=false&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2Farticles%2F2007%2F08%2Fwhy_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patientpowernow.org%2F2008%2F06%2F06%2Funited-states-health-care-ranking-who%2F&lmt=1187793926&dt=1253318968063&cc=100&u_tz=-300&u_his=6&u_java=true&u_h=1050&u_w=1400&u_ah=986&u_aw=1400&u_cd=16&u_nplug=41&u_nmime=162&flash=10.0.32"></script>
In the WHO rankings, the United States finished 37th, behind nations like Morocco, Cyprus and Costa Rica. Finishing first and second were France and Italy. Michael Moore makes much of this in his movie "Sicko."
The Commonwealth Fund looked at Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States -- and ranked the U.S. last or next to last on all but one criterion.
So the verdict is in. The vaunted U.S. medical system is one of the worst.
But there's less to these studies than meets the eye. They measure something other than quality of medical care. So saying that the U.S. finished behind those other countries is misleading.
First let's acknowledge that the U.S. medical system has serious problems. But the problems stem from departures from free-market principles. The system is riddled with tax manipulation, costly insurance mandates and bureaucratic interference. Most important, six out of seven health-care dollars are spent by third parties, which means that most consumers exercise no cost-consciousness. As Milton Friedman always pointed out, no one spends other people's money as carefully as he spends his own.
Even with all that, it strains credulity to hear that the U.S. ranks far from the top. Sick people come to the United States for treatment. When was the last time you heard of someone leaving this country to get medical care? The last famous case I can remember is Rock Hudson, who went to France in the 1980s to seek treatment for AIDS.
So what's wrong with the WHO and Commonwealth Fund studies? Let me count the ways.
The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem.
Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.
When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.
Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.
Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution.
It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south.
The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state.
Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled.
For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html
Yes we have some of the most advanced healthcare gadgets money can buy. If you have a 1/2 mil to spend some time in a hyperbolic chamber this is the place to be. We have more million dollar MRI machines than any other country in the world but the fact remains that in the quality of healhcare to all of our citizens we rank behind Costa Rico.
Cant help but notice that you dont argue our 1# ranking in cost.
If you didn't notice, I cleaned it up. I was a bit embarrassed about sinking to the level of hate filled dixicans.
Cant help but notice that you dont argue our 1# ranking in cost.
If you didn't notice, I cleaned it up. I was a bit embarrassed about sinking to the level of hate filled dixicans.
D2bets Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by Willie99
if we like the current system, why would we support Obama's plans to change it?
I'm all about my fundamental beliefs, and nothing about what party somebody belongs to. Most republicans tend to be closer to my political views than democrats are. I've yet to meet the perfect politician.
Newt is one politician that came closest. I'd take Newt's fiscal conservatism and no nonsense approach, Rudy on law enforcement / national security and Huckabee's personality and baddabing, that be Willie's boy.
BTW: I wouldn't mind Obi Wan Paul slashing wasteful spending, that would be mostly fun to watch.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
You like the current system? I knew there had to be somebody.
------------------------------------------------------------
Punter once again cites a worthless subjective study that does everything but measure the quality of health care, a study that the WHO admits can't be done accurately and thus haven't done such since 2000, a study that somehow yields significantly different results than the following two simple questions yield. It seems countries that actually CURE illness at higher rates and countries who's residents are happy with their health care have an inverse relationship with that debunked WHO study. It's the kind of lame liberal logic that looney's rely on.
Not only do I like my existing health care, so do 80% of Americans.
Riddle me this boys, why can't Obama get his bill passed with his 1,001 TV appearances, control of Congress, favorable press and more money being spent?
Because Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care.
Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care
Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care
Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care
Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care
Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care
Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care
Americans ARE HAPPY with their health care
sniff a clue someday
Willie whether many people are happy with their health care or not is arrogant and elitist beyond belief.
People that have good insurance are happy (temporary as it may be) but the unreasonable costs involved will bankrupt our government in very few years when all these happy people are kicked (priced) out of your beloved private insurance companies and are on medicare.
There has got to be a easy way to reduce these cost before we are a bankrupt nation. After all the French, Germans and even the Canadians have done it.
Kingbill was right to ask you "why do you hate America?"
People that have good insurance are happy (temporary as it may be) but the unreasonable costs involved will bankrupt our government in very few years when all these happy people are kicked (priced) out of your beloved private insurance companies and are on medicare.
There has got to be a easy way to reduce these cost before we are a bankrupt nation. After all the French, Germans and even the Canadians have done it.
Kingbill was right to ask you "why do you hate America?"
Because despite all the talk, it really doesn't change very much. There will still be a great deal of socialized medicine, but it won't be universal health care, the insurance companies will still make huge profits, the government will still waste a lot of money on health care
Bush could have changed all that but decided to not even bother. Obama attempts to change it and makes it the biggest issue of the year and in the end, even if gets what he wants, it won't change the system much at all
Who knew?
that simple fact that the vast majority of people are happy with their health care is neither arrogant or elitist, I'm not even sure how you come up with that stuff, but it does mean they don't think our health care system sucks. So just put that dead horse of yours to bed, and don't try to make that fact look like something it's not.
improvements can and should be made, but asking us to believe a government that never reduced costs in anything it ever touched, a government that explodes the deficit every time it does anything, a government that lows balls estimates by 50+% for every program it ever implemented, a government that is the cause for the debt threatening our nation is going to do something more economically for the first time is our history is just plain naive.
Encourage the medical profession to develop treatment standards, and reward them with tort reform. The medical profession should establish any such standards, not fucking idiot politicians. This is one way to reduce excessive health care services and assist in end of life decision making while and reducing litigation and insurance expenses as well.
Reducing obesity, drug use and illegal immigration abuses will also help.
I have no faith in politicians that have failed to contain costs in any program they ever ran at any level of government, and less than no faith in a politician that has to lie about everything he puts on the table.
You are right about one thing, our welfare system is killing us, but I don't understand how one can think expanding that system is going to save us. Makes no sense at all.
But that's the attitude that got the banks into the trouble to begin with. The problem with looking at everything in Black or white, left or right, business or government it removes balance and the balance is needed for things to run successfully.
Reagan started the push for complete deregulation but the bankers and brokers have proven they can't police themselves. The Repeal of Glass-Steagal was the worst thing that could have happened to the finacial industry. Pure Capitalism would be perfect if people were purely rational but they aren't.
Removing Glass-Steagal allowed banks to leverage themselves far beyond any rational level. Banks when from being 10-12 times leverage to almost 100 times there cap.
Things won't get better long term until Government realizes it needs to put measures in place allow businesses to succeed and the business community needs to realize it needs the government to implement some regulations to protect them from themselves.
