• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last

Re: We're Number......LAST

I think that is a partially correct answer. Very astute. I think overall our Country does many things well, although seldom perfect. Many people want to be on healthcare to keep their SSD and SSI checks flowing. Comp is another story, same players. Still, the items listed like longevity, baby deaths, etc. are hard to fudge. Real numbers. With 60-70% of the Federal budget going to Military Offense, it is obvious why Healthcare is shorted. Lifestyle choices; look around you; do you see much fat? You know obesity to the level of bad health. Looks common as horse turds to me.

Life expectancy is adversly affected by violent deaths and car accidents, two items that are more prevalent to younger individuals and would have a greater impact on longevity. I seem to recall seeing a study where they took out violent deaths and car accidents from the life expectancy stats, and found Americans were near the top - I can't recall the exact number, though. This would seem to be partially supported by the OP in the following quote:

and if we live to age 75 we're likely to keep on living longer than others.
 
Last edited:
Re: We're Number......LAST

Slow and crappy care is still better than nothing. Too bad the people who'd benefit the most from moving, the working poor, can't afford it.

I lived in Europe. Slow and crappy is right. In Sweden, the geriatric hospitals/residences were on a rotating national strike for years. I dunno if I've ever been in Europe when a health service was not on strike. Talk about no service!
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

One thing we all (or at least most) can agree on: The United States has some severe problems to solve. We have the most expensive health care in the world, yet no better outcomes than anyone else. We have more drug abuse than anyone. We have a higher infant mortality that other industrialized nations. We have more teen pregnancy than anyone. We have more prisoners than anyone else. We have a huge and growing debt. We have more obese people than anyone.

So, instead of leaping and hooting about being the greatest nation on Earth, instead of trying to solve everyone else's problems, instead of protecting the rest of the world with our military, why don't we try to solve some of the problems here at home? Let's quit making excuses and inventing bumper stickers, and start finding solutions, practical solutions that work in the real world.

What do you say?
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

pol car 17.jpg
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

One thing we all (or at least most) can agree on: The United States has some severe problems to solve. We have the most expensive health care in the world, yet no better outcomes than anyone else. We have more drug abuse than anyone. We have a higher infant mortality that other industrialized nations. We have more teen pregnancy than anyone. We have more prisoners than anyone else. We have a huge and growing debt. We have more obese people than anyone.

So, instead of leaping and hooting about being the greatest nation on Earth, instead of trying to solve everyone else's problems, instead of protecting the rest of the world with our military, why don't we try to solve some of the problems here at home? Let's quit making excuses and inventing bumper stickers, and start finding solutions, practical solutions that work in the real world.

What do you say?


I like this idea.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

One thing we all (or at least most) can agree on: The United States has some severe problems to solve. We have the most expensive health care in the world, yet no better outcomes than anyone else. We have more drug abuse than anyone. We have a higher infant mortality that other industrialized nations. We have more teen pregnancy than anyone. We have more prisoners than anyone else. We have a huge and growing debt. We have more obese people than anyone.

So, instead of leaping and hooting about being the greatest nation on Earth, instead of trying to solve everyone else's problems, instead of protecting the rest of the world with our military, why don't we try to solve some of the problems here at home? Let's quit making excuses and inventing bumper stickers, and start finding solutions, practical solutions that work in the real world.

What do you say?


I say that would be the sane course for us to take!
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

step one is completely delinking health care from specific employment. i was exceptionally disappointed that the PPACA didn't do that.

Remember, this was basically a Republican plan chosen as the best they could hope to pass and it was still a close one.
It is also a fact that most people are happy with their employee coverage so this was meant to not force people change their plans. In other words it's better than nothing, at least there are checks on the profits of the insurers and don't forget ending pre-existing conditions.
 
Last edited:
Re: We're Number......LAST

Well, let's see:

The highest rate of death by violence, by a stunning margin
The highest rate of death by car accident, also dramatically so

Neither of these have anything to do with our healthcare system.

The highest chance that a child will die before age 5

This is incorrect - we count all of our children who die, other nations do not. For example, we count premie babies (who are at significantly higher risk).

The second-highest rate of death by coronary heart disease

:) Gotta love McDonalds and Bar-b-Que. However, again, this doesn't really demonstrate a problem with our healthcare system as much as it does with our eating habits.

The second-highest rate of death by lung disease

This is also a rather massaged statistic. When you look at the actual incidence of, Americans survive cancer at a higher rate than other industrialized nations, due to the increased access and higher quality of care that our system offers. That is why the article in the OP also says:

"Americans are more likely to survive cancer or stroke, and if we live to age 75 we're likely to keep on living longer than others."

The highest teen pregnancy rate

Not terribly unsurprising, however, color me intensely suspicious.

The highest rate of women dying due to complications of pregnancy and childbirth

And, again, this depends on how you count. We count all of our losses, other nations do not.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Remember, this was basically a Republican plan chosen as the best they could hope to pass and it was still a close one.
It is also a fact that most people are happy with their employee coverage so this was meant to not force people change their plans. In other words it's better than nothing, at least there are checks on the profits of the insurers and don't forget ending pre-existing conditions.


yes, most people are happy with their employer provided coverage, if they have it, that is. The problem is, putting the burden of health care on employers is a bigger job killer than any "soak the rich" tax scheme could ever be. Moreover, if you lose your job, you lose your health care, which is a big disincentive for people to strike out on their own by starting a small business. The result of having the most expensive health care in the world is making the recession worse.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

All right then!

Does that mean it would be a new first for the government of the USA?


First it would have to be a new first for our society, as the change will have to come from us. Our government is us! It only does what we allow it to do!
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

yes, most people are happy with their employer provided coverage, if they have it, that is. The problem is, putting the burden of health care on employers is a bigger job killer than any "soak the rich" tax scheme could ever be. Moreover, if you lose your job, you lose your health care, which is a big disincentive for people to strike out on their own by starting a small business. The result of having the most expensive health care in the world is making the recession worse.

Agreed. The employer provided health insurance model is one of the worst things bequeathed to us by FDR. And that is quite a list to get on.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

yes, most people are happy with their employer provided coverage, if they have it, that is. The problem is, putting the burden of health care on employers is a bigger job killer than any "soak the rich" tax scheme could ever be. Moreover, if you lose your job, you lose your health care, which is a big disincentive for people to strike out on their own by starting a small business. The result of having the most expensive health care in the world is making the recession worse.

They should have thought of that years ago when the employer based system was set up complete with tax breaks for companies that provided it. The Govt. should have taken over then instead but it was "Communism" and the sky would fall so this is what we got stuck with.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Agreed. The employer provided health insurance model is one of the worst things bequeathed to us by FDR. And that is quite a list to get on.

FDR accepted employer based health care be cause job assurance came with it. Unions provided job security that is gone now.
We had plenty of times since when Nationaliztion of Healthcare was proposed but the Right would have none of it.
It turned out they liked the status quo FDR or not.
Do you believe we need nationaized healthcare like the rest of the Western world? Or do you stick with FDR on this one?
 
Last edited:
Re: We're Number......LAST

FDR accepted employer based health care be cause job assurance came with it.

:lol: No he didn't. It was an unforseen consequence of his wage controls.

We had plenty of times since when Nationaliztion of Healthcare was proposed but the Right would have none of it.

Nor the Center Left. If there was a consensus in the Democrat Party for single-payer, then that is what we would have gotten in 2010.

Do you believe we need nationaized healthcare like the rest of the Western world? Or do you stick with FDR on this one?

As I recall, FDR wanted nationalized healthcare as well - he just couldn't get it. I think that the state is an atrocious provider of consumer goods and services, and so turning over something as intensely personal and complicated as our healthcare to its' tender mercies would have about as much efficacy as raising every child in a state-run orphanage.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

:lol: No he didn't. It was an unforseen consequence of his wage controls.



Nor the Center Left. If there was a consensus in the Democrat Party for single-payer, then that is what we would have gotten in 2010.



As I recall, FDR wanted nationalized healthcare as well - he just couldn't get it. I think that the state is an atrocious provider of consumer goods and services, and so turning over something as intensely personal and complicated as our healthcare to its' tender mercies would have about as much efficacy as raising every child in a state-run orphanage.

I guess it is because the State is such "an atrocious provider" that our military is so weak and incapable. You just can't have it both ways you know. The U.S. military is the largest and most expensive socialist "project" in the world today.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

This is incorrect - we count all of our children who die, other nations do not. For example, we count premie babies (who are at significantly higher risk).

And, again, this depends on how you count. We count all of our losses, other nations do not.

This is actually a canard that has propagated throughout your healthcare debate.

Just looking at the European countries that have the exact same method of calculating infant mortality who have better rates include - the UK, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden.

For those that are higher on the list that fall out of that definition, the NCHS estimates that those countries would have to misreport a third of their dataset to explain the disparity.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41378.pdf
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

I guess it is because the State is such "an atrocious provider" that our military is so weak and incapable. You just can't have it both ways you know. The U.S. military is the largest and most expensive socialist "project" in the world today.

This is incorrect in two ways:

Firstly, defense is not a consumer good or service, as it is not consumed when it is received. It is a public good because it is not. While governments are usually better at breaking things than they are at making or disbursing them, defense does not represent a socialist project for the simple enough reason that it does not represent government ownership or control of the means of production.

Secondly, defense, like most the rest of our government, is also fairly famously inefficient, dollar-for-dollar.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

LOL, quite right: America's problem with obesity is the addition of individual problems with obesity.

At the end any nationwide solution needs the agreement of all these individuals to do the same kind of things.

And why excatly is a solution needed?
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

You think obesity is OK?

Don't know. I am not obsese. Are you? But for sure it causes a great deal of health problems and uncomfort.

If you or some one else is obese its none of my concern. I dont see were it would be the concern of government or society at large. Or for that matter why anybody would care except maybe the person who is obese or their familiy. I have been obese I have been athletically built at differnt points in my life.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

If you or some one else is obese its none of my concern. I dont see were it would be the concern of government or society at large. Or for that matter why anybody would care except maybe the person who is obese or their familiy. I have been obese I have been athletically built at differnt points in my life.

Unless society at large is impacted economically by others' obesity, then it is of no concern to society at large.

It seems to me that there is a major impact, however.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

If you or some one else is obese its none of my concern. I dont see were it would be the concern of government or society at large. Or for that matter why anybody would care except maybe the person who is obese or their familiy. I have been obese I have been athletically built at differnt points in my life.

How about you look it up?
Evidence on the considerable costs of obesity to individuals and society is rich. At the individual level, obesity is associated with health care costs that average about 30 percent above those for normal weight individuals. Overall, obesity-related direct and indirect economic costs exceed $100 billion annually, and the number is expected to grow. In relative terms, obesity accounts for 6 percent to 10 percent of U.S. health care spending, compared with 2 percent to 3.5 percent in other Western countries. The burden of obesity-related medical costs falls disproportionately on public health care in the U.S., draining resources from public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Obesity accounted for 27 percent of the growth in real U.S. health care spending between 1987 and 2001. Despite these sobering statistics, the full effects of obesity trends since the 1980s are not yet fully apparent because health problems caused by weight gain take time to appear.
Obesity and the Workplace

Given the significant financial burden imposed by obesity, employers have a stake in reducing obesity in the workforce. Obese workers miss more days of work and cost employers more in medical and disability claims as well as workers compensation claims. As a result, an average firm with 1,000 employees faces $285,000 per year in extra costs associated with obesity. In addition to the costs of obesity to businesses, obese employees are subject to significant discrimination in the workplace due to weight stigma.

(Yale Rudd Center)
 
Back
Top Bottom