The US supplies more end of life and care to elderly people, more life saving care for preemies (ICUs), more elective care (fertility treatments, lasik surgery, cosmetic surgery), than any of these countries. These are all much more expensive than a health visitor who gives you a prenatal check up. So the US is getting 3 times the care. But the people getting it are couples in their 40s trying to get pregnant and people in their 80s and 90s trying to live another decade. They are choosing to spend their money on this rather than on letting you get free check ups they pay for.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:29 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Frank, You are obviously misinformed as to the disparity of incomes that > exist in other countries... You will find the "dollar amount" different but > the disparity in that amount which does exist even greater in the majority > of nations which would in fact FAVOR the USA. > > Please do some homework. > > In a combined private and public spending on health care #37 USA spends > $6096.00 USD per person per year. The number 1 nation on the list, Italy > spends $2414.00 USD per person per year. > > You live in a capitalist nation..... get a freaking clue !!!!!! The system > ois VERY OBVIOUSLY broken, it should be supplying THREE TIMES more service > and could with proper management. > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 10:23 AM, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> Mark, >> >> Again, you go off on a tangent. Despite my better judgment I will >> repeat myself for a third time. These are MY objections to the ranking >> criteria. They account for 37.5% of the ranking. Focus on these, as >> they are the basis for this discussion, not other factors you are now >> bringing up. >> >> - 25% of the ranking comes from what the WHO refers to as “Financial >> Fairness”. It’s a measure of the disparity in percentage spent on >> healthcare per household across the entire population. So in a country >> such as the US, which has a wide disparity in household wealth, and >> where the people, not the government, pay for healthcare, there will >> automatically be a poor ‘FF’ ranking. FF rewards countries that offer >> socialized medicine since the disparity in percentages necessarily >> would approach zero. >> >> To quote from a report posted on cato.org (http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/ >> bp101.pdf) “The FF factor is not an objective measure of health >> attainment, but rather reflects a value judgment that rich people >> should pay more for health care, even if they consume the same amount. >> This is a value judgment not applied to most other goods, even those >> regarded as necessities such as food and housing. Most people >> understand and accept that the poor will tend to spend a larger >> percentage of their income on these items.” >> >> - 12.5% of the ranking comes from what they refer to as “Distribution >> of Health”. It is a measure of the disparity of the quality of >> healthcare across the entire population. To use my prior example, a >> third world country that offers nothing more than thatched roof huts >> and witch doctors, but uniformly provides this to it’s entire >> population will receive a higher rating than a country that provides >> world class healthcare to it’s entire population but offers access to >> additional, costly treatment to only those who can afford it. >> >> As for the other statistics and concerns you cite, some I agree with >> wholly and some I do not. Some are socioeconomic issues and are not >> specifically related to healthcare. They would all be legitimate >> subjects for discussion but they are not related to the issue I raised >> some 30+ posts ago. >> >> On Jul 6, 11:01 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> > *From the WHO site..............I Now exactly which of these do you >> have >> > problems with..* >> > ** >> > *Two numbers that make the US come in so low are 1. Infant mortality and >> 2. >> > life expectancy. These are NOT argueable.* >> > ** >> > *The following are the rest (below)... with which do you disagree... * >> > ** >> > *Since the main way to keep a population healthy is by Preventative >> Medicine >> > the US also takes another hit as most insurers do not cover this >> (pre-natal >> > care by the way is considered Preventative medicine in the US). Life >> > expectancy is decided (in developed countries) by the habits (good or >> bad) >> > of the population and this is in direct correlation with expendable >> income >> > and whether or not it is spent wisely.* >> > ** >> > *You have said point blank that you WISH you had the Congressional >> health >> > package... why don't you ?? YOU pay for it. That sort of stupidity does >> NOT >> > happen here in CR. Congress gets the same package as everyone else >> unless >> > they pay out of pocket for something better, Congress here keeps basic >> care >> > at the highest level possible for this reason.* >> > ** >> > *It is NOT possible to medically bankrupt in CR. or many other nations. >> * >> > ** >> > *As noted, good basic Preventative Care (which includes personal habits) >> is >> > responsible (or can be) for taking 70% of care off the table meaning a >> > system would only have to deal with 30% of the problems it faces today. >> Many >> > countries pay great attention to this... yours does not which is a great >> > reason it is ranked as low as it is. Preventative medicine is counter >> > productive to a for-Profit medical system.... you figure it out.* >> > ** >> > ** >> > ** >> > *Inverse care*. People with the most means – whose needs for health care >> are >> > often less – consume the most care, whereas those with the least means >> and >> > greatest health problems consume the least. Public spending on health >> > services most often benefi ts the rich more than the poor in high- and >> > lowincome countries alike. >> > >> > *Impoverishing care*. Wherever people lack social protection and payment >> for >> > care is largely out-of-pocket at the point of service, they can be >> > confronted with catastrophic expenses. Over 100 million people annually >> fall >> > into poverty because they have to pay for health care. >> > >> > *Fragmented and fragmenting care*. The excessive specialization of >> > health-care providers and the narrow focus of many disease control >> > programmes discourage a holistic approach to the individuals and the >> > families they deal with and do not appreciate the need for continuity in >> > care. Health services for poor and marginalized groups are often highly >> > fragmented and severely under-resourced, while development aid often >> adds to >> > the fragmentation. >> > >> > *Unsafe care*. Poor system design that is unable to ensure safety and >> > hygiene standards leads to high rates of hospital-acquired infections, >> along >> > with medication errors and other avoidable adverse effects that are an >> > underestimated cause of death and ill-health. >> > >> > *Misdirected care*. Resource allocation clusters around curative >> services at >> > great cost, neglecting the potential of primary prevention and health >> > promotion to prevent up to 70% of the disease burden. At the same time, >> the >> > health sector lacks the expertise to mitigate the adverse effects on >> health >> > from other sectors and make the most of what these other sectors can >> > contribute to health. >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > Mark, >> > >> > > > I suggest your outrage at WHO is based in your inacceptance of that >> which >> > > > simply is.... health care is better in 46 other nations regardless >> of >> > > your >> > > > touts and inability to afford basic care and comply with basic >> > > suggestions >> > > > as to life style has a lot to do with it. Numbers that are as basic >> and >> > > as >> > > > researchable as those I posted do not lie regardless of attempted >> spin. >> > >> > > I wasn't outraged and my issue wasn't with the WHO but rather their >> > > ranking report and the criteria they used to establish the rankings. I >> > > have no problem with the statistics you posted, but then, the ranking >> > > wasn't done using just those statistics and those aren't the >> > > statistics I took exception to, now are they? And it was 37, not 47. >> > > Can you get anything right? >> > >> > > > (1) And in answer I posted their criteria (5 countries as examples) >> and >> > > > asked you to point out where the criteria was wrong. >> > > > You failed to do this because there is such a basic list it is >> not >> > > an >> > > > argueable point. Again... EXACTLY which of the 5 complete lists of >> those >> > > > criteria lack credibility ?? >> > >> > > What you posted is NOT their criteria. What you published is a small >> > > portion of the criteria. The two examples I have posted twice account >> > > for 37.5% of the ranking, has nothing to do with healthcare and has >> > > nothing to do with what you are posting. So please, either directly >> > > address the issue or don't bother posting. >> > >> > > > (2) Yes they do... 47th in the world. there are over 160 countries. >> > >> > > Wrong... 37 according to a bogus ranking designed to make the US >> > > healthcare system look bad. >> > >> > > > 46 to be exact. >> > >> > > 36 to be exact. And again, this is only according to a bogus ranking. >> > >> > > > I did just that and you failed to point out ANY inaccuracies in >> their >> > > stats >> > > > or what make up those stats. >> > >> > > No, you ignored the issues raised and posted some statistics that >> > > aren't even being disputed. >> > >> > > On Jul 6, 1:39 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 9:57 PM, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > > > Mark, >> > >> > > > > You're accusing ME of not paying attention? Where was I waving a >> flag >> > > > > screaming “we’re number 1”? Where did I say “God bless America >> …and >> > > > > no where else”? >> > >> > > > I suggest your outrage at WHO is based in your inacceptance of that >> which >> > > > simply is.... health care is better in 46 other nations regardless >> of >> > > your >> > > > touts and inability to afford basic care and comply with basic >> > > suggestions >> > > > as to life style has a lot to do with it. Numbers that are as basic >> and >> > > as >> > > > researchable as those I posted do not lie regardless of attempted >> spin. >> > >> > > > > Good lord, there are many marvelous countries around >> > > > > the world with marvelous healthcare systems. >> > >> > > > > Now pay attention. I made two simple assertions at the start of >> this >> > > > > silly 'debate' and they were; >> > >> > > > > (1) The criteria used by the WHO to rank healthcare systems lack >> > > > > merit. Twice now I’ve documented two examples of this, with no >> > > > > rebuttal from either of you. >> > > > > (2) The US has a good healthcare system. >> > >> > > > (1) And in answer I posted their criteria (5 countries as examples) >> and >> > > > asked you to point out where the criteria was wrong. >> > > > You failed to do this because there is such a basic list it is >> not >> > > an >> > > > argueable point. Again... EXACTLY which of the 5 complete lists of >> those >> > > > criteria lack credibility ?? >> > > > (2) Yes they do... 47th in the world. there are over 160 countries. >> > >> > > > > I never said it didn’t have its share of problems. I never said it >> > > > > couldn’t be improved and I never said there weren’t better >> systems. >> > >> > > > 46 to be exact. >> > >> > > > > If >> > > > > you wish to challenge the issues I've raised concerning the WHO's >> > > > > ranking, please do. But please stop putting words in my mouth. >> > >> > > > I did just that and you failed to point out ANY inaccuracies in >> their >> > > stats >> > > > or what make up those stats. >> > >> > > > > > You are not the only one reading this... it is a public forum. >> > >> > > > > True, but then, you did address your post to me and you were >> > > > > responding to my comments - at least up to that point. 'scuse me >> for >> > > > > not noticing the change of audience. >> > >> > > > > On Jul 5, 8:30 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > Hollywood, >> > >> > > > > > If Frank was paying any kind of attention instead of waving a >> > > frigging >> > > > > flag >> > > > > > screaming "we're number 1" and "God bless America ...and no >> where >> > > else" >> > > > > > (apologies to Chris Rock) he would realize that life expectancy >> is >> > > the >> > > > > only >> > > > > > factor that can determine the effectiveness of a health care >> system. >> > > > > Numbers >> > > > > > pure and untainted do not lie. >> > > > > > Regardless of money spent and supposed "better facilities" and >> > > "better >> > > > > > Doctors" and better and better blah,blah, blah the US ranks way >> down >> > > the >> > > > > > list in life expectancy. >> > >> > > > > > If it is as he claims (or tries to) then the problem lies with >> the >> > > people >> > > > > > themselves.... they are either too stupid to follow medical >> > > > > recommendations, >> > > > > > too ignorant to do the same or they have created conditions >> (legal >> > > and >> > > > > > environmental) that do not allow them to benefit fully from such >> a >> > > > > > "marvelous" "best in the world" system (which again makes 'em >> just >> > > plain >> > > > > > stupid). >> > >> > > > > > Hey Frank.... Which is it ?? >> > > > > > On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 4:12 PM, Hollywood < >> > > [email protected] >> > > > > >wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > frankg, >> > >> > > > > > > You seem to have forgotten that I said " for the money we >> spend >> > > it's a >> > > > > > > pretty bad performance".. >> > > > > > > You seem to assume a lot. >> > >> > > > > > > On Jul 5, 3:26 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > > > > > Hollywood, >> > >> > > > > > > > I assumed that because you qualified the US healthcare >> system as >> > > "a >> > > > > > > > pretty bad performance". With so many other fine healthcare >> > > systems a >> > > > > > > > plane hop away, why would you risk your health remaining in >> the >> > > US? >> > >> > > > > > > > On Jul 5, 3:23 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > > > > > > > frankg, >> > >> > > > > > > > > Yep, I most certainly did. Even you in a later post agreed >> that >> > > it >> > > > > was >> > > > > > > > > not an illogical assumption for me to make due to the >> wording >> > > you >> > > > > > > > > used. What's it matter who is argeing with who? >> > >> > ... >> > >> > read more »- Hide quoted text - >> > >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> -- >> Mark M. Kahle, , >> www.filacoffee.com >> >> >> >> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
