View Poll Results: What needs to change in US healthcare?

Voters
46. You may not vote on this poll
  • Complete overhaul, replacing old system with European-style universal healthcare.

    27 58.70%
  • Partial overhaul, including expansion of Medicare, reworking of profit-based insurance system.

    9 19.57%
  • Sparse overhaul, based around getting rid of the profit-based private insurance companies.

    4 8.70%
  • Nothing needs to change, the US system is good the way it is.

    6 13.04%
Page 6 of 29 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 284

Thread: There are 36 countries with better healthcare than the USA. What needs to happen?

  1. #51
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: There are 36 countries with better healthcare than the USA. What needs to happen?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    I agree with you. I think the focus should have been on health care and not on insurance. What I see happening around where I live is more and more doctors refusing to see anymore new Medicaid patients due to the lower reimbursement percentage along with the longer wait to receive their reimbursement. What seems to be happening is more people are now going on the Medicaid rosters with less doctors now available to see them. This may be a plus for those who were never on Medicaid or had insurance, but it is a definite minus for those who had been on Medicaid previously.

    I have a granddaughter on Medicaid and now she is shopping around for a new doctor as her old one dropped her. She is having one heck of a time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Ja View Post
    one of the reactions many feared would happen once this came to be
    SO should I assume you two support more spending on Medicaid so it can pay higher reimbursements to doctors?
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  2. #52
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: There are 36 countries with better healthcare than the USA. What needs to happen?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ad_Captandum View Post
    I can't even wrap my head around the level of hypocrisy here. You told me all my sources are biased, and then provided biased sources of your own claiming that they're biased.

    You need to understand that 'biased' and 'not my opinion' don't mean the same thing.

    Pointing out where they are flawed and biased is not being biased. It is called accurately reporting.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ad_Captandum View Post
    And, please enlighten me, why would government healthcare be evil? Look at the NHS. Look at the French healthcare system. Sure, I get that CUBA having better healthcare than you may wound your national pride, so forget about that for a minute. But no one, and I mean NO ONE who has ever seen the NHS, can deny that it is a better system than what you've got.

    How is it evil?
    Your absurd responses run deep ...
    through ****.
    They do not have better healthcare.



    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


    ~ Continued below ~
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  3. #53
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: There are 36 countries with better healthcare than the USA. What needs to happen?

    Quote Originally Posted by scatt View Post
    Equality is not healthcare.
    It absolutely is. If we have incredible cancer-curing drugs, but you don't have access to it, is that good healthcare? Absolutely not. Healthcare is a system of delivering health to people that need it. Equality in obtaining that health is a fundamental element of the system.

  4. #54
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: There are 36 countries with better healthcare than the USA. What needs to happen?

    Quote Originally Posted by Excon View Post

    Pointing out where they are flawed and biased is not being biased. It is called accurately reporting.


    Your absurd responses run deep ...
    through ****.
    They do not have better healthcare.



    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


    ~ Continued below ~
    You've quoted a big long text that pretty much says a few doctors disagree. And the person writing the article? Scott Atlas, working for... The Hoover Institution! What's the Hoover Institution? Why, a conservative think tank!

    Surprise!

    Do you want to continue talking about bias?

  5. #55
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: There are 36 countries with better healthcare than the USA. What needs to happen?

    ~ Continued from above ~

    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, ... 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 ... continue to peddle it anyway. To quote Wolfgang Pauli's ... , “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



    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, ... 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 ... 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


    ~ Continued below ~
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  6. #56
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: There are 36 countries with better healthcare than the USA. What needs to happen?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gipper View Post
    If you have to ask - it's not you.
    I truly do not understand what you're saying. Are you saying you support a system that provides good healthcare to the very rich, and that's okay? I don't understand what your argument is.

  7. #57
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: There are 36 countries with better healthcare than the USA. What needs to happen?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    I can't pick any of those options.... what a crap poll.



    Kind of like a lot of Americans health care,eh?

  8. #58
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Britain, Mother of Civilisation
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    468

    Re: There are 36 countries with better healthcare than the USA. What needs to happen?

    [QUOTE=APACHERAT;1062742900]
    Quote Originally Posted by Ad_Captandum View Post

    What I noticed unless I overlooked it, the liberals spoke hole Michael Moore Cuba's health care didn't make the top 35.

    Do you think we were being jerked off by the left ?
    If anything, I think that reinforces the legitimacy of the report. Cuba came in at 40, worse than the US at 37. Predictably, extremely rich countries like France, Monaco, Switzerland, etc., came in at the top. No surprises.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Excon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 01:26 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,997

    Re: There are 36 countries with better healthcare than the USA. What needs to happen?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ad_Captandum View Post
    You've quoted a big long text that pretty much says a few doctors disagree. And the person writing the article? Scott Atlas, working for... The Hoover Institution! What's the Hoover Institution? Why, a conservative think tank!

    Surprise!

    Do you want to continue talking about bias?

    No, I provided information that shows what you provided is flawed.
    Do you really not understand that?
    You can not show that the flaws pointed out are not accurate.
    You can't do that because the study is factually flawed, skewed and biased.


    ~ Continued from above ~


    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]
    Pure unadulterated Bs!
    “The law is reason, free from passion.”
    Aristotle
    (≚ᄌ≚)

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Theoretical Physics Lab
    Last Seen
    01-06-15 @ 11:06 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    25,120

    Re: There are 36 countries with better healthcare than the USA. What needs to happen?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ad_Captandum View Post
    It absolutely is. If we have incredible cancer-curing drugs, but you don't have access to it, is that good healthcare? Absolutely not. Healthcare is a system of delivering health to people that need it. Equality in obtaining that health is a fundamental element of the system.
    Socializing medicine is a good way to ensure that we never have incredible cancer-curing drugs.

    My goal is to make sure that you don't drag the top down under your own deluded guise of pulling the bottom up.

Page 6 of 29 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •