View Poll Results: Would You Rather Have Obamacare or a System of UHC?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • "Obamacare"

    8 14.81%
  • Universal Health Care

    46 85.19%
Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 228

Thread: "Obamacare" or UHC?

  1. #181
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Are you drinking? You've already forgotten what we were talking about.

    Neo: We can't entitle people to limitless amounts of health care.
    Cat: No one said it would be limitless...
    Neo: Then what are the limits?
    Cat: Limits to PROFIT!!!
    Neo:

    Do you want people to have infinite, limitless health care that they don't have to pay for? If no, define the limit.
    Nope, just the superior care they receive in the rest of the industrialized world. What they have done was to limit overhead and excessive profits without lowering health care outcomes.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  2. #182
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Nope, just the superior care they receive in the rest of the industrialized world. What they have done was to limit overhead and excessive profits without lowering health care outcomes.
    Slow down and look at my question. Even with UHC there has to be limits to what health care expenditures people can incur on others. I would like the discussion to move toward discussing the limits, and away from the ideological grass-is-greener "Johnny's mommy lets him do it" arguments. Assume we have adopted UHC here, entitling our entire nation to the world's most expensive medical care. You have admitted (or at least alluded to) our inability to entitle everyone to everything. Define the limits.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 07-21-12 at 04:43 AM.

  3. #183
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Slow down and look at my question. Even with UHC there has to be limits to what health care expenditures people can incur on others.
    I would like the discussion to move toward discussing the limits, and away from the ideological grass-is-greener "Johnny's mommy lets him do it" arguments. Assume we have adopted UHC here, entitling our entire nation to the world's most expensive medical care. You have admitted (or at least alluded to) our inability to entitle everyone to everything. Define the limit.
    That's just it, there are no more limits (except in overhead costs and excessive profits by health care executives) than under our private health care system. Otherwise they would not be getting better health outcomes. Limiting overhead and excessive profits in exchange for lower costs and better health outcomes does not bother me the way it seems to bother you.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  4. #184
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    US Ranks Last in Health Care vs AUS, CAN, GER, NETH, NZ, UK

    "Among the seven nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last overall, as it did in the 2007, 2006, and 2004. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, coordination, efficiency, and equity. The Netherlands ranks first, followed closely by the U.K. and Australia.”
    lol


    "health outcomes"

    ROTFLMAO

    Some people just buy into anything that they think supports their position.


    The Worst Study Ever?
    Scott W. Atlas — April 2011
    [...]

    In fact, World Health Report 2000 was an intellectual fraud of historic consequence—a profoundly deceptive document that is only marginally a measure of health-care performance at all. The report’s true achievement was to rank countries according to their alignment with a specific political and economic ideal—socialized medicine—and then claim it was an objective measure of “quality.”

    [...]

    But even if you dismiss all that, the unreliability of World Health Report 2000 becomes inarguable once you confront the sources of the data used. In the study, WHO acknowledged that it “adjusted scores for overall responsiveness, as well as a measure of fairness based on the informants’ views as to which groups are most often discriminated against in a country’s population and on how large those groups are” [emphasis added]. A second survey of about 1,000 “informants” generated opinions about the relative importance of the factors in the index, which were then used to calculate an overall score.

    [...]

    The report’s margin of error is similarly ludicrous in scientific terms. The margin for error in its data falls outside any respectable form of reporting. For example, its data for any given country were “estimated to have an 80 percent probability of falling within the uncertainty interval, with chances of 10 percent each of falling below the low value or above the high one.” Thus, as Whitman noted, in one category—the “overall attainment” index—the U.S. could actually rank anywhere from seventh to 24th. Such a wide variation renders the category itself meaningless and comparisons with other countries invalid.

    And then there is the plain fact that much of the necessary data to determine a nation’s health-care performance were simply missing. The WHO report stated that data was used “to calculate measures of attainment for the countries where information could be obtained . . . to estimate values when particular numbers were judged unreliable, and to estimate attainment and performance for all other Member States.”

    [...]

    About the Author
    Scott W. Atlas is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at the Stanford University Medical Center.
    « The Worst Study Ever? Commentary Magazine





    World Health Organization ranking of health systems

    [...]

    Methodology

    The rankings are based on an index of five factors:[1]
    • Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy
      • Overall or average : 25%
      • Distribution or equality : 25%

    • Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
      • Overall or average : 12.5%
      • Distribution or equality : 12.5%

    • Fair financial contribution : 25%


    Criticism

    [...] Dr Richard G. Fessler called the rankings "misleading" and said that tens of thousands of foreigners travel to the United States every year for care. In addition, he claims that the United States leads the world in survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer. He also noted that the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior".[4] Dr Philip Musgrove wrote that the rankings are meaningless because they oversimplify: "numbers confer a spurious precision".[5]

    Journalist John Stossel notes that the use of life expectancy figures is misleading and the life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise. When controlled for these facts, Stossel claims that American life expectancy is actually one of the highest in the world.[6] A publication by the right-wing Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.[7] Stossel also criticizes the ranking for favoring socialized healthcare, noting that "a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[6]

    Glen Whitman claims that "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[8] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care. The rankings assume literacy rate is indicative of healthcare, but ignore many factors, such as tobacco use, nutrition, and luck. Regarding the distribution factors, Whitman says "neither measures healthcare performance" since a "healthcare system [can be] characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone." If healthcare improves for one group, but remains the same for the rest of the population, that would mean an increase in inequality, despite there being an improvement in quality.[9] Dr Fessler echoed these sentiments.[4]
    [...]

    World Health Organization ranking of health systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




    Health Care System Rankings

    N Engl J Med 2010; 362:1546-1547 April 22, 2010

    To the Editor:

    In their Perspective article (Jan. 14 issue),1 Murray and Frenk review a number of indicators of the relatively poor state of the population's health in the United States. Most, if not all, of this information is well known to readers of the Journal, and the authors' use of it is not objectionable. However, Murray and Frenk begin their discussion by referring to the World Health Report 2000, Health Systems: Improving Performance, from the World Health Organization (WHO), which ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world, and this is objectionable. (I was editor-in-chief of the World Health Report 2000 but had no control over the rankings of health systems.) Fully 61% of the numbers that went into that ranking exercise were not observed but simply imputed from regressions based on as few as 30 actual estimates from among the 191 WHO member countries. Where the United States is concerned, data were available only for life expectancy and child survival, which together account for only 50% of the attainment measure. Moreover, the “responsiveness” component of attainment cannot be compared across countries, and the estimates of responsiveness for some countries were manipulated. This is not simply a problem of incomplete, inaccurate, or noncomparable data; there are also sound reasons to mistrust the conceptual framework behind the estimates, since it presupposes a production function for health system outcomes that depends only on a country's expenditure on health and its level of schooling, ignoring all cultural, geographic, and historical factors.2

    The number 37 is meaningless, but it continues to be cited, for four reasons. First, people would like to trust the WHO and presume that the organization must know what it is talking about. Second, very few people are aware of the reason why in this case that trust is misplaced, partly because the explanation was published 3 years after the report containing the ranking. Third, numbers confer a spurious precision, appealing even to people who have no idea where the numbers came from. Finally, those persons responsible for the number continue to peddle it anyway. To quote Wolfgang Pauli's dismissal of a theory opposed to quantum mechanics, “Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!” Analyzing the failings of health systems can be valuable; making up rankings among them is not. It is long past time for this zombie number to disappear from circulation.

    Philip Musgrove, Ph.D.
    , Bethesda, MD

    Health Care System Rankings - NEJM




    Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study
    By John Stossel
    August 22, 2007

    [...]
    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.

    [...]

    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.
    [...]

    RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study






    Trouble in the Ranks
    How the World Health Organization unfairly evaluates national health care system
    s

    Glen Whitman
    Associate Professor of Economics
    California State University
    May 2008

    [...]
    • “The WHO rankings include factors that are arguably unrelated to actual health performance, some of which could even improve in response to worse health performance.”

    • To use the existing WHO rankings to justify more government involvement in health care is to engage in circular reasoning because the rankings are designed in a manner that favours greater government involvement.”

    • “There is good reason to account for the quality of care received by a country’s worst-off or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution factors do not do that.”

    [...]

    Trouble in the Ranks
    How the World Health Organization unfairly evaluates national health care systems


    ~Continued below~

  5. #185
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    ~Continued from above~


    As sourced from the above Wiki.
    Note 4; a b Fessler, Richard G., MD, PhD (1 June 2009). "Popular Ranking Unfairly Misrepresents the U.S. Health Care System". Smart Girl
    Popular Ranking Unfairly Misrepresents the U.S. Health Care System
    6.1.2009
    [...]

    According to Dr. Richard G. Fessler, a Chicago neurosurgeon who travels the world to perform state of the art surgery for patients who do not have access to what Americans currently enjoy, "When it comes to quality healthcare, the United States Health Care is second to none!"

    [...]

    In summary, therefore, the WHO ranking system has minimal objectivity in its “ranking” of world health. It more accurately can be described as a ranking system inherently biased to reward the uniformity of “government” delivered (i.e. “socialized”) health care, independent of the care actually delivered. In that regard the relatively low ranking of the US in the WHO system can be viewed as a “positive” testament to at least some residual “free market” influence (also read “personal freedom”) in the American Health Care system. The American health care consumer needs to understand what the WHO ranking does and does not say about American health. Don’t be fooled by “big government” politicians and the liberal media who are attempting to use this statistic to push for socialized medicine in the United States. It says essentially nothing about the delivery of health care or the quality of that delivery in the US. It does say that, so far, the American health care consumer has at least some personal freedom to seek the best health care available, and is not yet relegated to the “one size fits all” philosophy of government sponsored health care systems.
    Popular Ranking Unfairly Misrepresents the U.S. Health Care System





    Ill-Conceived Ranking Makes for Unhealthy Debate
    In the Wrangle Over Health Care, a Low Rating for the U.S. System Keeps Emerging Despite Evident Shortcomings in Study

    October 21, 2009
    The trouble is, the ranking is dated and flawed, and has contributed to misconceptions about the quality of the U.S. medical system.

    Among all the numbers bandied about in the health-care debate, this ranking stands out as particularly misleading. It is based on a report released nearly a decade ago by the World Health Organization and relies on statistics that are even older and incomplete.
    [...]
    The objects of his criticism, including Christopher Murray, who oversaw the ranking for the WHO, responded in a letter to the Lancet arguing that WHO "has an obligation to provide the best available evidence in a timely manner to Member States and the scientific community." It also credited the report with achieving its "original intent" of stimulating debate and focus on health systems.

    Prof. Murray, now director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, says that "the biggest problem was just data" -- or the lack thereof, in many cases. He says the rankings are now "very old," and acknowledges they contained a lot of uncertainty. His institute is seeking to produce its own rankings in the next three years. The data limitations hampering earlier work "are why groups like ours are so focused on trying to get rankings better."


    A WHO spokesman says the organization has no plans to update the rankings, and adds, "We would not consider it current."

    [...]

    An Ill-Conceived Health-Care Ranking - WSJ.com


    The italicized portion.
    Simply wow.
    [paraphrased] We knew the data was bad, but we really just wanted to stimulate debate. [/paraphrased]

  6. #186
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post
    lol


    "health outcomes"

    ROTFLMAO

    Some people just buy into anything that they think supports their position.


    The Worst Study Ever?
    Scott W. Atlas — April 2011
    [...]

    In fact, World Health Report 2000 was an intellectual fraud of historic consequence—a profoundly deceptive document that is only marginally a measure of health-care performance at all. The report’s true achievement was to rank countries according to their alignment with a specific political and economic ideal—socialized medicine—and then claim it was an objective measure of “quality.”

    [...]

    But even if you dismiss all that, the unreliability of World Health Report 2000 becomes inarguable once you confront the sources of the data used. In the study, WHO acknowledged that it “adjusted scores for overall responsiveness, as well as a measure of fairness based on the informants’ views as to which groups are most often discriminated against in a country’s population and on how large those groups are” [emphasis added]. A second survey of about 1,000 “informants” generated opinions about the relative importance of the factors in the index, which were then used to calculate an overall score.

    [...]

    The report’s margin of error is similarly ludicrous in scientific terms. The margin for error in its data falls outside any respectable form of reporting. For example, its data for any given country were “estimated to have an 80 percent probability of falling within the uncertainty interval, with chances of 10 percent each of falling below the low value or above the high one.” Thus, as Whitman noted, in one category—the “overall attainment” index—the U.S. could actually rank anywhere from seventh to 24th. Such a wide variation renders the category itself meaningless and comparisons with other countries invalid.

    And then there is the plain fact that much of the necessary data to determine a nation’s health-care performance were simply missing. The WHO report stated that data was used “to calculate measures of attainment for the countries where information could be obtained . . . to estimate values when particular numbers were judged unreliable, and to estimate attainment and performance for all other Member States.”

    [...]

    About the Author
    Scott W. Atlas is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at the Stanford University Medical Center.
    « The Worst Study Ever? Commentary Magazine





    World Health Organization ranking of health systems

    [...]

    Methodology

    The rankings are based on an index of five factors:[1]
    • Health (50%) : disability-adjusted life expectancy
      • Overall or average : 25%
      • Distribution or equality : 25%

    • Responsiveness (25%) : speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities
      • Overall or average : 12.5%
      • Distribution or equality : 12.5%

    • Fair financial contribution : 25%


    Criticism

    [...] Dr Richard G. Fessler called the rankings "misleading" and said that tens of thousands of foreigners travel to the United States every year for care. In addition, he claims that the United States leads the world in survival rates for 13 of the 16 most common types of cancer. He also noted that the financial fairness measure was automatically designed to "make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior".[4] Dr Philip Musgrove wrote that the rankings are meaningless because they oversimplify: "numbers confer a spurious precision".[5]

    Journalist John Stossel notes that the use of life expectancy figures is misleading and the life expectancy in the United States is held down by homicides, accidents, poor diet, and lack of exercise. When controlled for these facts, Stossel claims that American life expectancy is actually one of the highest in the world.[6] A publication by the right-wing Pacific Research Institute in 2006 claims to have found that Americans outlive people in every other Western country, when controlled for homicides and car accidents.[7] Stossel also criticizes the ranking for favoring socialized healthcare, noting that "a country with high-quality care overall but 'unequal distribution' would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution."[6]

    Glen Whitman claims that "it looks an awful lot like someone cherry-picked the results to make the U.S.'s relative performance look worse than it is." He also notes that the rankings favor countries where individuals or families spend little of their income directly on health care.[8] In an article in The American Spectator, Whitman notes how the rankings favor government intervention, which has nothing to do with quality of care. The rankings assume literacy rate is indicative of healthcare, but ignore many factors, such as tobacco use, nutrition, and luck. Regarding the distribution factors, Whitman says "neither measures healthcare performance" since a "healthcare system [can be] characterized by both extensive inequality and good care for everyone." If healthcare improves for one group, but remains the same for the rest of the population, that would mean an increase in inequality, despite there being an improvement in quality.[9] Dr Fessler echoed these sentiments.[4]
    [...]

    World Health Organization ranking of health systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




    Health Care System Rankings

    N Engl J Med 2010; 362:1546-1547 April 22, 2010

    To the Editor:

    In their Perspective article (Jan. 14 issue),1 Murray and Frenk review a number of indicators of the relatively poor state of the population's health in the United States. Most, if not all, of this information is well known to readers of the Journal, and the authors' use of it is not objectionable. However, Murray and Frenk begin their discussion by referring to the World Health Report 2000, Health Systems: Improving Performance, from the World Health Organization (WHO), which ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world, and this is objectionable. (I was editor-in-chief of the World Health Report 2000 but had no control over the rankings of health systems.) Fully 61% of the numbers that went into that ranking exercise were not observed but simply imputed from regressions based on as few as 30 actual estimates from among the 191 WHO member countries. Where the United States is concerned, data were available only for life expectancy and child survival, which together account for only 50% of the attainment measure. Moreover, the “responsiveness” component of attainment cannot be compared across countries, and the estimates of responsiveness for some countries were manipulated. This is not simply a problem of incomplete, inaccurate, or noncomparable data; there are also sound reasons to mistrust the conceptual framework behind the estimates, since it presupposes a production function for health system outcomes that depends only on a country's expenditure on health and its level of schooling, ignoring all cultural, geographic, and historical factors.2

    The number 37 is meaningless, but it continues to be cited, for four reasons. First, people would like to trust the WHO and presume that the organization must know what it is talking about. Second, very few people are aware of the reason why in this case that trust is misplaced, partly because the explanation was published 3 years after the report containing the ranking. Third, numbers confer a spurious precision, appealing even to people who have no idea where the numbers came from. Finally, those persons responsible for the number continue to peddle it anyway. To quote Wolfgang Pauli's dismissal of a theory opposed to quantum mechanics, “Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!” Analyzing the failings of health systems can be valuable; making up rankings among them is not. It is long past time for this zombie number to disappear from circulation.

    Philip Musgrove, Ph.D.
    , Bethesda, MD

    Health Care System Rankings - NEJM




    Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study
    By John Stossel
    August 22, 2007

    [...]
    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.

    [...]

    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.
    [...]

    RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study






    Trouble in the Ranks
    How the World Health Organization unfairly evaluates national health care system
    s

    Glen Whitman
    Associate Professor of Economics
    California State University
    May 2008

    [...]
    • “The WHO rankings include factors that are arguably unrelated to actual health performance, some of which could even improve in response to worse health performance.”

    • To use the existing WHO rankings to justify more government involvement in health care is to engage in circular reasoning because the rankings are designed in a manner that favours greater government involvement.”

    • “There is good reason to account for the quality of care received by a country’s worst-off or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution factors do not do that.”

    [...]

    Trouble in the Ranks
    How the World Health Organization unfairly evaluates national health care systems


    ~Continued below~


    I'll go with the World Health Organization over right wing opinions any day!!!
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  7. #187
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    US Ranks Last in Health Care vs AUS, CAN, GER, NETH, NZ, UK | The Big Picture

    "Among the seven nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last overall, as it did in the 2007, 2006, and 2004. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, coordination, efficiency, and equity. The Netherlands ranks first, followed closely by the U.K. and Australia.”

    Sources:
    Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: How the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally
    Karen Davis, Ph.D., Cathy Schoen, M.S., and Kristof Stremikis, M.P.P.
    Commonwealth fund, June 23, 2010
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #188
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    I'll go with the World Health Organization over right wing opinions any day!!!
    Of course you will.
    Because you do not care that it was wrong and biased to begin with.
    Your saying that the rest of the industrialized word received superior care, is just proof that you do not know what you are talking about.

    Read what is in red.

    Ill-Conceived Ranking Makes for Unhealthy Debate
    In the Wrangle Over Health Care, a Low Rating for the U.S. System Keeps Emerging Despite Evident Shortcomings in Study

    October 21, 2009
    The trouble is, the ranking is dated and flawed, and has contributed to misconceptions about the quality of the U.S. medical system.

    Among all the numbers bandied about in the health-care debate, this ranking stands out as particularly misleading. It is based on a report released nearly a decade ago by the World Health Organization and relies on statistics that are even older and incomplete.
    [...]
    The objects of his criticism, including Christopher Murray, who oversaw the ranking for the WHO, responded in a letter to the Lancet arguing that WHO "has an obligation to provide the best available evidence in a timely manner to Member States and the scientific community." It also credited the report with achieving its "original intent" of stimulating debate and focus on health systems.

    Prof. Murray, now director of the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington, Seattle, says that "the biggest problem was just data" -- or the lack thereof, in many cases. He says the rankings are now "very old," and acknowledges they contained a lot of uncertainty. His institute is seeking to produce its own rankings in the next three years. The data limitations hampering earlier work "are why groups like ours are so focused on trying to get rankings better."


    A WHO spokesman says the organization has no plans to update the rankings, and adds, "We would not consider it current."

    [...]

    An Ill-Conceived Health-Care Ranking - WSJ.com


    The italicized portion.
    Simply wow.
    [paraphrased] We knew the data was bad, but we really just wanted to stimulate debate. [/paraphrased]

  9. #189
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    That's just it, there are no more limits (except in overhead costs and excessive profits by health care executives) than under our private health care system. Otherwise they would not be getting better health outcomes. Limiting overhead and excessive profits in exchange for lower costs and better health outcomes does not bother me the way it seems to bother you.
    I admit I am an arrogant person, but I really do not like the idea of being mean to you, frankly because on the environmental side of things I find you to be an ally. But I have to apply the pressure here, and I'm sensing the only way I can do it is to give simple examples.

    Say we have UHC now, whereby everyone can get a colonoscopy, because it is preventive as well as curative (GD polyps, get 'em out!). Do you cap what a doctor can charge for a colonoscopy? Do you prevent a person from getting a colonoscopy annually versus once every five years? What if a doctor figures out a way to ram it up there at twice the speed and charge $500 more for his procedure, in order to up his profits. What does the government do about doctors like that? And keep in mind, this is just a single procedure. There are hundreds or thousands more subject to this same sort of intense scrutiny and cost-control issue. Medical necessity is a judgment call and the doctor (who stands to profit) is the only one who really knows the patient and the only one who can speak to medical necessity. How do you control for him maximizing what he can rake in? Ultimately, there have to be LIMITS. OPPRESSIVE LIMITS. I'm asking you to think about that, because it is never as simple as Universally entitling people to Health Care and then expecting costs to magically come down. There has to be active management of those costs. Explain what you think the USG is prepared to do to actively manage those costs, or admit defeat.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 07-21-12 at 05:02 AM.

  10. #190
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: "Obamacare" or UHC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    US Ranks Last in Health Care vs AUS, CAN, GER, NETH, NZ, UK | The Big Picture

    "Among the seven nations studied—Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last overall, as it did in the 2007, 2006, and 2004. Most troubling, the U.S. fails to achieve better health outcomes than the other countries, and as shown in the earlier editions, the U.S. is last on dimensions of access, patient safety, coordination, efficiency, and equity. The Netherlands ranks first, followed closely by the U.K. and Australia.”

    Sources:
    Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: How the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally
    Karen Davis, Ph.D., Cathy Schoen, M.S., and Kristof Stremikis, M.P.P.
    Commonwealth fund, June 23, 2010
    lol


    The Commonwealth Fund is hardly a bastion of unbiased honesty.

    Their studies are as flawed as the WHO reports are, for the very same reasons.

Page 19 of 23 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •