• 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

head of joaquin said:
The study tries to compare apples with apples. Why does that offend you? Would you rather compare the US with Cuba? Wait, Cuba does quite well in a comparison of health outcomes with the US. Go figure.
Click to expand...

17 nations hardly make an accurate portrait - the idea behind looking at such skimmed statistics is to compare, contrast - and then learn what can be done differently. . . statistics serve purpose.

This does none of that - and 17 is far too few . . . to identify the areas that need improvements and how best to improve them you cannot write off other nations that are economically eschew . . . you should look at them and figure out *how* does economics impact their healthcare - - and seek out other factors to compare other than 'how we rank amid these 6 statistics' . . . The op is not a serious effort to understand and pick it apart to suggest improvements and issues.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
17 nations hardly make an accurate portrait - the idea behind looking at such skimmed statistics is to compare, contrast - and then learn what can be done differently. . . statistics serve purpose.

This does none of that - and 17 is far too few . . . to identify the areas that need improvements and how best to improve them you cannot write off other nations that are economically eschew . . . you should look at them and figure out *how* does economics impact their healthcare - - and seek out other factors to compare other than 'how we rank amid these 6 statistics' . . . The op is not a serious effort to understand and pick it apart to suggest improvements and issues.
Click to expand...


What countries do you feel have similar economic status to that of the US that are not on the list of 17?
 
Catawba said:
What countries do you feel have similar economic status to that of the US that are not on the list of 17?
Click to expand...

More importantly: Does it all rest on economics? What other countries might be better off - yet not on par economically . . . why? Also - cultural and social norms that we share, political views, the approach to providing healthcare and cost-control, geography and how it affects accessibility (to hospitals - of medicines) and so on . . . etc. You need variety to really see where a country lies.

And since healthcare can vary widely in the US between professions I'd also contrast that - professions, states, types of insurance, etc.

If I was really hammering down on this to really get a sense of where we were - compared to where others were (huge variety - top to bottom) - and then defining where we want to be and how we *might* be able to get there (different paths).
 
Aunt Spiker said:
More importantly: Does it all rest on economics? What other countries might be better off - yet not on par economically . . . why? Also - cultural and social norms that we share, political views, the approach to providing healthcare and cost-control, geography and how it affects accessibility (to hospitals - of medicines) and so on . . . etc. You need variety to really see where a country lies.

And since healthcare can vary widely in the US between professions I'd also contrast that - professions, states, types of insurance, etc.

If I was really hammering down on this to really get a sense of where we were - compared to where others were (huge variety - top to bottom) - and then defining where we want to be and how we *might* be able to get there (different paths).
Click to expand...

AS, I really respect you and the way you post, even when I disagree with you, but that was a total dodge.

So if you don't think economic status should be the only criteria, feel free to name any nation that you feel should have been included in the comparison and why they should have been included.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
More importantly: Does it all rest on economics? What other countries might be better off - yet not on par economically . . . why? Also - cultural and social norms that we share, political views, the approach to providing healthcare and cost-control, geography and how it affects accessibility (to hospitals - of medicines) and so on . . . etc. You need variety to really see where a country lies.

And since healthcare can vary widely in the US between professions I'd also contrast that - professions, states, types of insurance, etc.

If I was really hammering down on this to really get a sense of where we were - compared to where others were (huge variety - top to bottom) - and then defining where we want to be and how we *might* be able to get there (different paths).
Click to expand...


I don't see how you could make any valid comparison of health care systems without choosing countries of similar economic status. I am curious, why do you think Canada switched from our type of system to Universal Health Care?
 
sangha said:
AS, I really respect you and the way you post, even when I disagree with you, but that was a total dodge.

So if you don't think economic status should be the only criteria, feel free to name any nation that you feel should have been included in the comparison and why they should have been included.
Click to expand...

For one - the list is mostly European nations . . . except for 3.

Comparing populated with rural and religious with non religious (etc - since these things also have proven to heavily govern healthcare access and general health due to lifestyle) . . adding these because related cultures are sorely unrepresented - mostly the list is European.

Countries which we share some similarities with:
China
Greenland
Brazile
Turkey
Israel
Russian Federation (broken into it's components)
India
Panama
South Africa

For stark contrast (entirely different in every way)
Cuba
Micronesia (all it's islander components)
Morocco
Madagascar

Then focusing on states that are likely different than the rest of the US because of population / culture / religious contrasts:
Hawaii
Texas
Colorado
Minnesota
Maine
Alaska
Mississippi
The Virginias
The Dakotas
Vermont

And instead of ranking I'd factor out weighted averages . . . it's more accurate.

By subdividing all things and then weighing the nation based on the sum of it's parts you get a better idea of where a nation is excelling, ok, and struggling . . . to write off all nations who are economically 'less' than us as being 'all miserably failling' is possibly overlooking some crucial and beneficial facts.

Some of these countries receive a lot of support and care from other governments and religious organizations - that would be interesting to study. How much of an impact do they have: 20 years ago VS today . . . how much attention is being given to said impact. . . and so on.
 
Minnesota, 2012

"A fiscal study by the Lewin Group found that single payer would cover all Minnesota residents and reduce total health spending by $4.1 billion, or 8.8 percent, in 2014, and would save $189.5 billion from 2014-2023 over what health care costs in Minnesota would be under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The plan would cover most medically necessary care with the exception of home care (outside of what is now covered by Medicare) and nursing home care, and would eliminate most cost-sharing, except for some small co-pays on specialty care and medications (medications for chronic conditions would be excluded from cost-sharing). Lewin estimated that single payer would save employers currently offering coverage an average of $1,214 per worker, and save an average of $1,362 for families. Employers not currently providing coverage would pay an additional $1,963 per worker annually. Single payer could be financed with existing sources of taxpayer funding for health care (including subsidies from the ACA) combined with an average 7.2 percent effective payroll tax on employers, a 3 percent income tax on family adjusted gross income, and cigarette ($1.00/pack) and alcohol taxes (5 cents per drink)."

Single Payer System Cost? | Physicians for a National Health Program
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Rocketman said:
Surrender, get real, a maker-me, will never surrender to a taker- you
Click to expand...
Gotta love that leftover Romney-speak. What a doofus. Don't hear much from him here lately though. Kind of like Bush. Just another Republican run out of town on a rail. And to think that he ACTUALLY WAS the best candidate the Republicans had.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

head of joaquin said:
First we have to clean up the mess left by conservative Bush's misrule, including the financial meltdown, the bailout, and two unfunded wars. Then after we fix up the problems left by failed conservative politicies, growth with take care of debt.
Click to expand...

Sure, sure, and we can start cleaning up the mess right after the fourth Bush/Obama term.

If, that is, we elect someone who is actually different, and if Congress ever gets its act together.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Cardinal Fang said:
Gotta love that leftover Romney-speak. What a doofus. Don't hear much from him here lately though. Kind of like Bush. Just another Republican run out of town on a rail. And to think that he ACTUALLY WAS the best candidate the Republicans had.
Click to expand...

I would hate to be an idiot that voted for Obama who is literally running the country in the ground.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

head of joaquin said:
Actually the US remains the top manufacturer in the world. But leaving that aside, the problem of outsourcing is somewhat easily solved: ban it or tax it.

However, this isn't relevant to GDP growth, which happens due to productivity gains and the inherent advantages of the American economy (if not eviscerated by failed conservative policies).
Click to expand...

I agree the problem with outsourcing can be easily solved

However GDP growth in a capitalist country such as America unless I'm mistaken is based on money in circulation.
Which comes from American people having money.

Asking for money from GDP growth in America in America's current financial condition would be like going to a loan shark for 15 trillion and then going to another loan shark to pay off the 15 trillion.
Instead of one loan shark with interest you will have two loan sharks with interest you have to pay back.

In 2003 some of Americans begin to question the new economic system in America.
We were told then "NO PROBLEM AMERICA'S GDP IS DOING GREAT".
Again in 2005 and 2010 we were told pretty much the same thing.

However it is 2013 check the debt, check the IOU'S, check the unemployment.
The current economic system is not working it didn't work under the Republicans, and after 4 years the Democrats should know by now it is not working for them either.:peace
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Rocketman said:
This link clearly shows what socialized medicine on borrowed money does to a nation:
Click to expand...
Never mind that the supposed article is three years old and has the vanished Cheesehead Paul Ryan as its point man. National health care systems do a better job for less money. The losing proposition is the one boneheads have been trying to run here. PPACA starts the process of USA CHANGE. Please stand back of the white line along the platform.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Dittohead not! said:
Sure, sure, and we can start cleaning up the mess right after the fourth Bush/Obama term.
Click to expand...
Bush and Obama are almost polar opposites. Of course, they have travel on Air Firce One in common, and they both do wear blue ties or red ties quite often. Maybe that and a bunch of similalr things are what's thrown you off.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Cardinal Fang said:
Bush and Obama are almost polar opposites. Of course, they have travel on Air Firce One in common, and they both do wear blue ties or red ties quite often. Maybe that and a bunch of similalr things are what's thrown you off.
Click to expand...

Similar things like Obama continuing the Bush policies in Iraq and Afganistan, like Obama continuing the Bush policy of deficit spending, of Obama doubling down on Bush's idea of providing more government sponsored health care, of Obama continuing and expanding the Department of Education and its No Child Left Behind test centered curriculum, yes, similar things like that lead me to believe that they're pretty much alike.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

presluc said:
I agree the problem with outsourcing can be easily solved.
Click to expand...
Sure, just agree to pay a bunch of higher prices instead. We voted on that. Outsourcing won. Higher prices lost.

presluc said:
However GDP growth in a capitalist country such as America unless I'm mistaken is based on money in circulation.
Click to expand...
No, you're mistaken alright. Even in countries run by harsh communist dictators, GDP is based on the output of real goods and services. That's why it's called Gross Domestic PRODUCT, not Gross Domestic MONEY.

presluc said:
Asking for money from GDP growth in America in America's current financial condition would be like going to a loan shark for 15 trillion and then going to another loan shark to pay off the 15 trillion. Instead of one loan shark with interest you will have two loan sharks with interest you have to pay back.
Click to expand...
In the real world, the people you want to call loan sharks are crawling across the floor and begging Please, please, please, take my money. You can pay me almost no interest at all. That would be wonderful in fact, just please take my money.

presluc said:
However it is 2013 check the debt, check the IOU'S, check the unemployment. The current economic system is not working it didn't work under the Republicans, and after 4 years the Democrats should know by now it is not working for them either.
Click to expand...
Gotta love it. So what does the new and better system look like again? People who don't know and can't explain how the current model is put together want to burn it to the ground in a belief that they'll figure out a way to raise up a new and better phoenix from the ashes. It's all a bunch of pie-in-the-sky hooey.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Cardinal Fang said:
Never mind that the supposed article is three years old and has the vanished Cheesehead Paul Ryan as its point man. National health care systems do a better job for less money. The losing proposition is the one boneheads have been trying to run here. PPACA starts the process of USA CHANGE. Please stand back of the white line along the platform.
Click to expand...

Less money for whom? My costs are higher than they have ever been just in premiums. Me thinks you are on the government teet.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Rocketman said:
Less money for whom? My costs are higher than they have ever been just in premiums. Me thinks you are on the government teet.
Click to expand...

You're making a good argument for a steep progressive income tax to offset the differential benefits and burdens of competitive advantage.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
17 nations hardly make an accurate portrait - the idea behind looking at such skimmed statistics is to compare, contrast - and then learn what can be done differently. . . statistics serve purpose..
Click to expand...

Accurate as to what? Those are the 17 advanced economies. It kind of makes sense to compare our system to theirs and not, say, Somalias.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
More importantly: Does it all rest on economics? What other countries might be better off - yet not on par economically . . . why? Also - cultural and social norms that we share, political views, the approach to providing healthcare and cost-control, geography and how it affects accessibility (to hospitals - of medicines) and so on . . . etc. You need variety to really see where a country lies.

And since healthcare can vary widely in the US between professions I'd also contrast that - professions, states, types of insurance, etc.

If I was really hammering down on this to really get a sense of where we were - compared to where others were (huge variety - top to bottom) - and then defining where we want to be and how we *might* be able to get there (different paths).
Click to expand...

Inadvertently, you're making my point not yours. PUBLIC health sucks in the US since it's rationed by income. Other advanced countries don't do that.

If you want to compare countries that ration health care by income, say Somalia, with us, be my guess. You'd be making my point.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Dittohead not! said:
Similar things like Obama continuing the Bush policies in Iraq and Afganistan...
Click to expand...
Bush abandoned Afghanistan. Which is why Obama had to go back. Bush then got us quagmired in Iraq for no reason at all. Obama got us out of that. Couldn't necessarily save the dishes and silverware, but indeed we are out after proving only that some people learned nothing from Vietnam. Oh, and that bin Laden guy is dead too.

Dittohead not! said:
...like Obama continuing the Bush policy of deficit spending...
Click to expand...
LOL! Policy doesnt enter into it. Since 1969, we've had a budget deficit every year but four. All under Clinton. But thanks to Bush, you will not live to see that happen again.

Dittohead not! said:
...of Obama doubling down on Bush's idea of providing more government sponsored health care...
Click to expand...
Got history? Attempts to get a national health insurance program in place in this country go back nearly a century to the AALL/AMA effort just before WWI. It was overtaken by events. The Depression and WWII overshadowed further efforts such as those by the CCMC and FDR's National Health Act of 1939. Truman pushed hard for a national single-payer plan after the war, but in the era of the Red Scare, idiot reactionaries were able to associate it with Communism and it too died. In the 1950's, progressives changed tactics and in the end were able to pass Medicare and Medicaid. Nixon and Ted Kennedy were very close to agreement on a national health care program, but it was overtaken by Watergate. Clinton's efforts in the early 1990's followed some earlier ones in falling victim to tactical errors. Finally, Obama came around to the back door and had Congress write the plan and HCR was passed at last. Bush? Not a player.

Dittohead not! said:
...of Obama continuing and expanding the Department of Education...
Click to expand...
DOEd has been there since Carter. No one intends to knock it down. Big words are all hot air.

Dittohead not! said:
...and its No Child Left Behind test centered curriculum...
Click to expand...
Again, the history. NCLB originated under LBJ. Bush just changed the name in 2001 because at that time, he wanted to be "The Education President" when he grew up. Curricula are of course defined at the state and local level and so is testing. Testing was obviously not new either, but high-stakes "teaching to the test" was, and nobody much liked that or the unfunded mandate part of things or the draining of funds out of schools that needed them most. As the result, NCLB was essentially gutted by Obama in 2011. His new bill was passed in the Senate, but faced yet another partisan blockade over in the House. So Obama used an Executive Order to provide waivers to more than half the states (the ones with a lot of at-risk kids and schools), removing them from coverage under the act. NCLB is effectively dead. You think killing it is the same as supporting it.

Dittohead not! said:
...yes, similar things like that lead me to believe that they're pretty much alike.
Click to expand...
You didn't do your homework. But you can copy off mine if you like and impress friends and family with how much you learned in school today.
 
Last edited:
Re: We're Number......LAST

Rocketman said:
Less money for whom?
Click to expand...
Less money per capita for better overall health care. Countries all over the world are doing it. This should hardly come as a shock. It's been in all the papers.

Rocketman said:
My costs are higher than they have ever been just in premiums.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you might be one of the last victims of the old system. It'll be something you can tell your grandkids about. But in the first year under PPACA controls, premiums rose by less than half as much as they did in the last year before PPACA kicked in. That's the bigger picture.

Rocketman said:
Me thinks you are on the government teet.
Click to expand...
We all are, dude. As if it mattered.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

head of joaquin said:
You're making a good argument for a steep progressive income tax to offset the differential benefits and burdens of competitive advantage.
Click to expand...

I am making a good argument for lazy ****s to go back to work.
 
Re: We're Number......LAST

Cardinal Fang said:
Less money per capita for better overall health care. Countries all over the world are doing it. This should hardly come as a shock. It's been in all the papers.


Sounds like you might be one of the last victims of the old system. It'll be something you can tell your grandkids about. But in the first year under PPACA controls, premiums rose by less than half as much as they did in the last year before PPACA kicked in. That's the bigger picture.
Click to expand...

Please get your programming somewhere besides huffington or the new york times, my premiums rose more after 26 year old adults could stay on their parent insurance than it had in the previous 10 years combined.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom