- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
SO should I assume you two support more spending on Medicaid so it can pay higher reimbursements to doctors?
-
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?
- Thread starter Ad_Captandum
- Start date
SO should I assume you two support more spending on Medicaid so it can pay higher reimbursements to doctors?
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
:doh:lamo:doh
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
Scott W. Atlas — April 2011
[...]
[highlight]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.[/highlight] 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.
[...]
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 MagazineWorld Health Organization ranking of health systems
[...]
Methodology
Criticism
World Health Organization ranking of health systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaMethodology
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]
[...]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]
[highlight]~ Continued below ~[/highlight]
Ad_Captandum
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 184
- Location
- Britain, Mother of Civilisation
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
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.
Ad_Captandum
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 184
- Location
- Britain, Mother of Civilisation
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
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?
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
[highlight]~ Continued from above ~[/highlight]
Health Care System Rankings
N Engl J Med 2010; 362:1546-1547 April 22, 2010
Health Care System Rankings - NEJMTo 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. ([highlight]I was editor-in-chief[/highlight] 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,[highlight] the “responsiveness” component of attainment cannot be compared across countries, and the estimates of responsiveness for some countries were manipulated.[/highlight] 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
[highlight]The number 37 is meaningless[/highlight], but it continues to be cited, for four reasons. [highlight]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[/highlight], ... the explanation was published 3 years after the report containing the ranking. Third, [highlight]numbers confer a spurious precision[/highlight], 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
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. ([highlight]I was editor-in-chief[/highlight] 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,[highlight] the “responsiveness” component of attainment cannot be compared across countries, and the estimates of responsiveness for some countries were manipulated.[/highlight] 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
[highlight]The number 37 is meaningless[/highlight], but it continues to be cited, for four reasons. [highlight]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[/highlight], ... the explanation was published 3 years after the report containing the ranking. Third, [highlight]numbers confer a spurious precision[/highlight], 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
Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study
By John Stossel
August 22, 2007
RealClearPolitics - Articles - 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.
[...]
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 systems
Glen Whitman
Associate Professor of Economics
California State University
May 2008
How the World Health Organization unfairly evaluates national health care systems
How the World Health Organization unfairly evaluates national health care systems
Glen Whitman
Associate Professor of Economics
California State University
May 2008
[...]
Trouble in the Ranks- “The WHO rankings include [highlight]factors that are arguably unrelated to actual health performance[/highlight], some of which could even improve in response to worse health performance.”
- “[highlight]To use the existing WHO rankings to justify more government involvement in health care is to engage in circular reasoning[/highlight] 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.”
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
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.
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[highlight]~ Continued below ~[/highlight]
Ad_Captandum
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 184
- Location
- Britain, Mother of Civilisation
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
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.
Ad_Captandum
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 184
- Location
- Britain, Mother of Civilisation
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
:naughty
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.
[highlight]~ Continued from above ~[/highlight]
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
[...]
An Ill-Conceived Health-Care Ranking - WSJ.com
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."
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. :doh
Simply wow.
[paraphrased] We knew the data was bad, but we really just wanted to stimulate debate. [/paraphrased]
Pure unadulterated Bs!
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 25,116
- Reaction score
- 7,658
- Location
- Theoretical Physics Lab
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
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.
SBu
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 1,523
- Reaction score
- 636
- Location
- Washington State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
What a revelation, people travel around to get medical care. Thailand had 2.6 million medical tourists in 2012 (from the same wikipedia article). Generally, Americans would travel to other destinations to get a certain kind of procedure cheaper, or perhaps for cheaper prescription drugs. Europeans might travel to Thailand for a cheap sex change operation or heart surgery. Generally speaking, if an American has a real medical problem, the best place to be is right here. Our medical R&D is second to none and we pay for it. You are over simplifying the issue.
scatt
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 4,721
- Reaction score
- 509
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yeah, because the healthcare is good. Since healthcare is what is being graded, only healthcare matters.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 25,116
- Reaction score
- 7,658
- Location
- Theoretical Physics Lab
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
That's why I don't like WHO and other "statistical" measures of health care from biased sources. They like to tack a 0 on to the 100 as an excuse to give the 100 a 50.
Socialist medicine is militantly self-preservating, and likes to trick the dumbest of the masses.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 40,615
- Reaction score
- 9,087
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Independent
:doh
No one should entitled to another's efforts, which is what healthcare is. The product of another's efforts.
polgara
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
- Messages
- 20,215
- Reaction score
- 17,786
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
:agree: Great post! :thumbs: Too many Heads of State from other parts of the world have come here for medical care over the years to make me believe we are somehow substandard. And many of them fly right over France and some of the others listed to get here, too!
Greetings, SBu. :2wave:
SBu
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 1,523
- Reaction score
- 636
- Location
- Washington State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Bonsoir Polgara! The quality of our medical care is really quite good even among other so called first world systems. The idea that the number of medical tourists is an indicator of the quality of a medical system just doesn't make sense. The issue we are having is how do we make health care more financially accessible to the lower middle class. The poor have government systems and legislative protections, the upper middle class and rich are ok, but the lower middle class can be wiped out by an unexpected medical complication or battles with hospital/insurance.
I do not think universal health care is a better system. I don't think that insurance is the problem. I don't think a large portion of middle class people being wiped out by medical bills is a good place to be either. I do think that there is a pragmatic way to solve this problem without government becoming excessively involved in medical care that still achieves the desired result of making health care affordable, but it would mean the next time we tackle the problem we don't ask corporations and political tacticians to write the legislation.
Steve Ja
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2013
- Messages
- 1,092
- Reaction score
- 206
- Location
- Kansas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I support privatized insurance and medical treatments. However since we have the programs and they are entitlements, since we pay directly for them. They should be properly funded. This will mean an increase in taxes that I am against, but for the good of those programs to ensure their survival i would propose an increase in medicare and SS taxes.
I guess the short answer is yes I do support more funding for medicaid
scatt
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 4,721
- Reaction score
- 509
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Privatized means paid for with taxation.
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 30,804
- Reaction score
- 22,358
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I do. It does no good to put people on Medicaid if doctors start refusing to see them. This just makes the numbers look good, so many millions now have insurance. What is important is that they get to see a doctor. You and I have been through this before and if I remember right if we could do it together, we would have left the 80% who were happy/satisfied with their insurance alone and set up a VA type health care system to take care of the rest. Thus guaranteeing they get to see a doctor.
What Obamacare or the ACA or what ever people want to call it, is health insurance reform. It is not guaranteeing or solving the healthcare problem. It shifts the responsibility of who is paying for insurance for those who did not have it and is placing millions more on Medicaid. It stops people from just paying for what they need or want in a health care policy to what is mandated by government and makes the young double or triple their premiums in order to pay for the older crowds insurance and those who didn't have it. What good is having insurance if there is no doctor who will see you? Right now my granddaughter is in that group. She has Medicaid, but doctors do not like the 60% reimbursement rate of allowed costs. Then there is the long wait for that reimbursement.
scatt
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 4,721
- Reaction score
- 509
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
You are confusing private with privatized. The state doesn't usually build roads or anything, they pay private companies to build it with taxpayer funds, this is privatization.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2013
- Messages
- 15,633
- Reaction score
- 6,159
- Location
- Behind the Orange Curtain
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
WIKIPEDIA !!! Why do so many use Wikipedia without first going to the Wiki Talk Page ?
For example from the Talk Page link you provided.
Medical
>"Medical tourism call it what it is! All these companies have been bracketed by this term by the so-called experts who could come up with no better word to describe what has happened in the USA over the past several years. The truth is that Medical Tourism is nothing new. Colombia has been treating savvy patients for years from all over the world especially for cosmetic and eye surgery. Colombia has been a recognized provider of high quality care in advanced cardiovascular and transplant surgery for years. Transplant surgery is not only available to many persons because of the high cost but because waiting lists (USA) or no established organ banking system. But what’s most amusing to me is that what is happening with the so-called "Medical Tourism in the USA" phenomena is the tables have turned on the USA. Just years ago, persons would travel from everywhere in the world to have surgery done in such places as Mayo and Cleveland Clinics. Many of these persons have been redirected to other countries that can provide equal or better levels of care because of unreasonable and cumbersome visa requirements after 9-11. So what has emerged out of this phenomena is a classic sending offshore more jobs of persons back home in the USA -- somewhat akin to shipping manufacturing and service (call centers) jobs offshore – only this time it is the some of the more unlikely candidates: physicians and other medical professionals. The experts say that medical tourism will amount to a $10 billion industry by 2009. So there's enough to go around for every country that can provide the exacting standards required by USA patients who have had some of the world's best care but now have been forced to shop around for a better deal. Consider Colombia! No visa restrictions and cheaper airfare over some other destinations located in Asia."<
Neutrality issues
>" This article contains quite a few neutrality problems. As currently written, most of the material is unsourced, e.g.
Medical tourists are generally residents of the industrialized nations of the world, the countries they travel are typically the less developed ones with lower cost of high quality medical care
Who is vouching for the medical care as being "high quality?"
No source is given for the assertion that "health care insurance companies within industrialized nations have begun considering medical tourism as a potential cost-saving measure."
It is suggested that in the U. S. "most view Medical Tourism as risky because of lack of information, confusion and understanding." No sources are provided, and no evidence is presented that medical tourism is not "risky."
One of the reasons cited for an increase in medical tourism is "favorable currency exchange rates in the global economy." But this is certainly not true for the United States..."<
Neutrality of Statement questioned
>" Since I am health care professional and involved in the industry, I will not edit this article. I do hope the administrators will take note of what follows and act accordingly. The following statement placed in the article appears to lack neutrality and appears to be more commercial puffery than factual..."<
Personal opinion added to article
>" The insertion of the line"Dubious given that Rockefeller was in Thailand from the early 1920's and Mahidol was a low-ranked royal, not in Thailand most of the time]."
It is an expression of opinion and is not supported by the facts..."<
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2005
- Messages
- 34,938
- Reaction score
- 12,337
- Location
- Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Interesting.
However, as usual, it's all a matter of context.
We apparently rank 15th (in this study) in "overall performance", while ranking 1st in expenditure per capita (IOW, we spend the most on health care). Combined this apparently equals 37th place in the rankings
But I see nothing explaining in even partial detail how they determined overall performance, so I have no way of knowing how complete and or incomplete the study was.
Short statements are good for headlines and grabbing attention, but they are nearly useless beyond that. And FAR too easily misconstrued or taken out of context.
Edit: Further, anyone with an even fractional awareness of our current healthcare system would already be aware that costs are really high.
Last edited: