• 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!

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

What needs to change in US healthcare?

  • Complete overhaul, replacing old system with European-style universal healthcare.

    Votes: 25 65.8%
  • Partial overhaul, including expansion of Medicare, reworking of profit-based insurance system.

    Votes: 7 18.4%
  • Sparse overhaul, based around getting rid of the profit-based private insurance companies.

    Votes: 4 10.5%
  • Nothing needs to change, the US system is good the way it is.

    Votes: 2 5.3%

  • Total voters
    38
Why would my political ideology cause me to want to say the US has bad healthcare? If privatised, insurance-based healthcare was more effective than universal healthcare, I would be pushing for that. My political ideology has nothing to do with it -- and it's also a cheap method to discredit what I'm saying.

You know as well as I the WHO didn't publish rankings in the 2010 report, so there's another lie you've failed to sell me on -- but if you want more evidence, check it out:

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study | Reuters

Reuters. Are you going to claim Reuters, or the Commonwealth, are untrustworthy as well?

Who exactly would be trustworthy to you? FOX News? John Boehner? Sarah Palin?

My comment was in response to your dismissal of the facts I brought forth as a result of some superiority complex I have as an "American".

A rather juvenile accusation in my opinion, and one supported by your doubling down on juvenile by including Fox News, John Boehner, and Sarah Palin in your response.

I think I've made by point, and you've proven where you're coming from in both context and perhaps on other levels as well.

Thanks.
 
It's no secret that the US health care system is a disaster, and of all developed nations, the US has some of the worst health care and overall health.

This Business Insider article mentions the 36 countries that have better health care than the US, from France in #1 to Costa Rica in #36.

My poll today is: What needs to change to bring the US closer to other developed nations in terms of health care quality, service and costs?

The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider

Over the past year, I can't figure out this Businessinsider website. It's comparable to Yahoo's front page. They post any article and never fact checking. Defiantly not a reliable source.

The best one Businessinsider did was the "Best Top Ten Marine Corps in the World." To the best of my knowledge there are only three or four marine corps in the world. The Royal Marines are not a corps.

I've recently been to Costa Rica, their health care is third world. There are a few hospitals that are decent but they are for the Americans who live down there.

Half the countries that were listed you can find people getting off the plane at JFK and LAX today coming from those countries to get an operation in America. Even the King of Saudia Arabia and his family come to America for their health care.
 
It's no secret that the US healthcare system is a disaster, and of all developed nations, the US has some of the worst healthcare and overall health.

This Business Insider article mentions the 36 countries that have better healthcare than the US, from France in #1 to Costa Rica in #36.

My poll today is: What needs to change to bring the US closer to other developed nations in terms of healthcare quality, service and costs?

The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider

I see a few nonhealthcare factors used to determine the best healthcare. Why would they do that?
 
I've now provided three articles from three different sources that all claim, based on worldwide research, that the US has a terrible healthcare system.
:naughty
No, all you have provided is biased and flawed information.
I provided a link to the information that has shown the Who ranking are admittedly biased, skewed and flawed.

And then I provided the methodology from your second link showing it really has nothing to do with "better healthcare".


Is it a global conspiracy? Or maybe, certain elements in your own country that are doing very well by your system don't want it to change? Which is more likely?
It is an agenda. An agenda that is willing to use biased and flawed information to further the agenda.
 
Over the past year, I can't figure out this Businessinsider website. It's comparable to Yahoo's front page. They post any article and never fact checking. Defiantly not a reliable source.

The best one Businessinsider did was the "Best Top Ten Marine Corps in the World." To the best of my knowledge there are only three or four marine corps in the world. The Royal Marines are not a corps.

I've recently been to Costa Rica, their health care is third world. There are a few hospitals that are decent but they are for the Americans who live down there.

Half the countries that were listed you can find people getting off the plane at JFK and LAX today coming from those countries to get an operation in America. Even the King of Saudia Arabia and his family come to America for their health care.

And there are Americans that fly to Europe for healthcare -- 750,000 in 2007, and 1.5 million in 2008 (sources in the article provided below). What's your point?

Medical tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, about the Marine Corps thing -- a corps is just a large military body. An organisation doesn't need to be named 'corps' to be one -- perhaps they were just ranking marine services around the world?
 
Really? Criticism resulting in exile is appropriate?

Are you hearing yourself?

Who the hell is talking about exile? Exile is force.

If you don't like the policies of where you are, be somewhere else. Otherwise, the least of what you are is hypocritical.
 
:naughty
No, all you have provided is biased and flawed information.
I provided a link to the information that has shown the Who ranking are admittedly biased, skewed and flawed.

And then I provided the methodology from your second link showing it really has nothing to do with "better healthcare".


It is an agenda. An agenda that is willing to use biased and flawed information to further the agenda.

If you claim that my worldwide, globally research sources are biased, I can just as easily claim your article is just as biased. We get nowhere playing this game -- and I've provided more evidence here, whether you've claimed it's biased or not.

Pray tell, what is the agenda? Is it this nation-wide conspiracy to bring American healthcare into the 21st century? To give the 315 million citizens of one of the world's richest nations healthcare that is at least on par with a Caribbean dictatorship?

What an evil agenda.
 
Who the hell is talking about exile? Exile is force.

If you don't like the policies of where you are, be somewhere else. Otherwise, the least of what you are is hypocritical.

So you believe there's no place for criticism in America? How else would things change?

Or do you really believe America is perfect and doesn't need to change?
 
I see a few nonhealthcare factors used to determine the best healthcare. Why would they do that?
Sadly, you won't get a reply that includes a direct answer for obvious reasons. I applaud you for trying nevertheless.
 
So you believe there's no place for criticism in America? How else would things change?

Or do you really believe America is perfect and doesn't need to change?

I believe that you can criticize all you want. I also think that the means of the many do not change for the wants of the few. I also believe that anyone who cannot accept that can kick rocks.

If people want to actively change health care, I'll actively stymie them. I'll consider it a good for the people - the people that count, anyway.
 
It's no secret that the US healthcare system is a disaster, and of all developed nations, the US has some of the worst healthcare and overall health.

This Business Insider article mentions the 36 countries that have better healthcare than the US, from France in #1 to Costa Rica in #36.

My poll today is: What needs to change to bring the US closer to other developed nations in terms of healthcare quality, service and costs?

The 36 Best Healthcare Systems In The World - Business Insider

There are certainly problems with the American system. It is too expensive, for instance. But it is not so straightforward what "better" means.
When you sight the European countries, I know some of the systems quite well. If I consider the German, the only thing that is better is that it takes less of GDP. But most of the better doctors or dentists are American trained. If you don't have private insurance you get less good treatment . The quality ofpublic coverage has come down and is deteriorating. The frequency of hospital infection of MFSR is so high that you are refused admittance in Dutch hospitals coming from a German hospital etc.

Also don't forget that most medicine is developed for the American market and the quality of treatment in other countries is thus only possible because of the state of US health care.
 
I believe that you can criticize all you want. I also think that the means of the many do not change for the wants of the few. I also believe that anyone who cannot accept that can kick rocks.

If people want to actively change health care, I'll actively stymie them. I'll consider it a good for the people - the people that count, anyway.

Who are the people that count?
 
And there are Americans that fly to Europe for healthcare -- 750,000 in 2007, and 1.5 million in 2008 (sources in the article provided below). What's your point?

Medical tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QUOTE]

That it, a corps is two or more divisions. Two or more corps are an army.

It's like when just not Businessinsider but most journalist refer to a destroyer or an amphibious transport as being a battleship or calling a semi automatic rifle an assault rifle or an ammunition magazine a clip.
 
If you claim that my worldwide, globally research sources are biased, I can just as easily claim your article is just as biased. We get nowhere playing this game -- and I've provided more evidence here, whether you've claimed it's biased or not.
Do you not know what admittedly means? It is admitted to be flawed. Duh!

I provided you the Post providing the information showing the Who's ranking are skewed flawed and biased.
Go and read it and then weep.

I then quoted from your second source showing the methodology, which has nothing to do with what is "better healthcare".
Do you not understand that?


Nothing you had provided is unbiased factual information.
It is flawed and is being used to further an agenda.


Even the third set of information you used, the Commonwealth Fund study, is flawed and biased.
It is not objective.
Even John Stossel was able to point them out.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Another Bogus Report Card for U.S. Medical Care




Pray tell, what is the agenda? Is it this nation-wide conspiracy to bring American healthcare into the 21st century? To give the 315 million citizens of one of the world's richest nations healthcare that is at least on par with a Caribbean dictatorship?

What an evil agenda.
The evil agenda is trying to bring us Government healthcare.
The evil agenda is trying to bring us healthcare on par with a Caribbean dictatorship. You have been tricked into thinking they have better healthcare, when they don't.
 
Why are non-healthcare factors important for finding out who has the best healthcare?

According to the WHO, factors like literacy, birth rate, infant mortality rate, etc., are all indicative of the overall health of a populace, and can sometimes provide insight that traditional statistics like money spent on healthcare can overshadow.
 
Do you not know what admittedly means? It is admitted to be flawed. Duh!

I provided you the Post providing the information showing the Who's ranking are skewed flawed and biased.
Go and read it and then weep.

I then quoted from your second source showing the methodology, which has nothing to do with what is "better healthcare".
Do you not understand that?


Nothing you had provided is unbiased factual information.
It is flawed and is being used to further an agenda.


Even the third set of information you used, the Commonwealth Fund study, is flawed and biased.
It is not objective.
Even John Stossel was able to point them out.
RealClearPolitics - Articles - Another Bogus Report Card for U.S. Medical Care




The evil agenda is trying to bring us Government healthcare.
The evil agenda is trying to bring us healthcare on par with a Caribbean dictatorship. You have been tricked into thinking they have better healthcare, when they don't.

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.


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?
 
According to the WHO, factors like literacy, birth rate, infant mortality rate, etc., are all indicative of the overall health of a populace, and can sometimes provide insight that traditional statistics like money spent on healthcare can overshadow.

Your article claims "NOTE: The rankings are based on an index of five factors — health, health equality, responsiveness, responsiveness equality, and fair financial contribution. As noted above, all data is from 2000 or earlier and these findings have been questioned."

Of the five factors, only health and responsiveness have to do with healthcare. Less than half of the requirements are healthcare related.
 
And there are Americans that fly to Europe for healthcare -- 750,000 in 2007, and 1.5 million in 2008 (sources in the article provided below). What's your point?

Medical tourism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

QUOTE]

That it, a corps is two or more divisions. Two or more corps are an army.

It's like when just not Businessinsider but most journalist refer to a destroyer or an amphibious transport as being a battleship or calling a semi automatic rifle an assault rifle or an ammunition magazine a clip.

I still think we're splitting hairs here. Business Insider is an American publication, thus it used American terminology for an article -- it called other marine services, like the Royal Marines, 'corps', while those services might not have used that particular word. Fine.

I don't see how any of that affects their article on healthcare that is a direct link to the World Health Organization anyway.
 
Other: anyone who bitches about it, get the F out and go to one of the 36 countries.

Fantastic idea. Don't ever bother trying to improve something, just give up if you aren't happy.
 
Your article claims "NOTE: The rankings are based on an index of five factors — health, health equality, responsiveness, responsiveness equality, and fair financial contribution. As noted above, all data is from 2000 or earlier and these findings have been questioned."

Of the five factors, only health and responsiveness have to do with healthcare. Less than half of the requirements are healthcare related.

You're wrong -- equality is a fundamental element of a good healthcare system. If you have millions and millions of dollars, you can get good healthcare anywhere in the world. That doesn't mean the system is good -- the best healthcare system provides healthcare for all, and at a reasonable cost.
 
You're wrong -- equality is a fundamental element of a good healthcare system. If you have millions and millions of dollars, you can get good healthcare anywhere in the world. That doesn't mean the system is good -- the best healthcare system provides healthcare for all, and at a reasonable cost.

Equality is not healthcare.
 
I still think we're splitting hairs here. Business Insider is an American publication, thus it used American terminology for an article -- it called other marine services, like the Royal Marines, 'corps', while those services might not have used that particular word. Fine.

I don't see how any of that affects their article on healthcare that is a direct link to the World Health Organization anyway.

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 ?
 
Back
Top Bottom