increased government control of healthcare is not an option its a reduction of options
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > There are other options. You could do it, I could do it.... > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:30 PM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Then why would you even attempt to push for single-payer or socialized >> medicine then. Since you agree that the feds would not provide proper >> management, then why would you want to give the power to them. >> >> >> Mark wrote: >> >> Absolutely not. I base that logic on common sense and past practice. >> >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM, dick thompson <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> And you truly believe that the feds will provide proper management? >>> Based on what logic. >>> >>> Mark 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mark M. Kahle, , >>> www.filacoffee.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
