This is a good point. They found that the rankings are sensitive to what measures are used, and how those measures are defined.
Linda
"France is healthcare leader, US comes dead last: study"
- Thread starter Tsukasa Buddha
- Start date
This is a good point. They found that the rankings are sensitive to what measures are used, and how those measures are defined.
Linda
balrog666
Eigenmode: Cynic
- Joined
- May 24, 2004
- Messages
- 2,974
Eskarina
Touched By His Noodly Appendages
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 637
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
I haven't been able to gover anything but the first few pages of the study.
The basic idea for measurement seems far better than the WHO model from a few years ago, but as people have pointed out, the devil is in the details.
The "0-14" category concerns me somewhat on the first view. I know the US is hurt in a number of rankings - most especially infant mortality - because it report a number of pre-9 month births as "births" (and a failure to survive means a hit for infant mortality), whereas a number of other countries would not count the 'birth' where the baby did not survive. I cannot tell from a first glance whether this might have an impact. The latest addendum looked at cannot be found on the web -- you have to go back to the earlier study for methodology.
If the numbers are un-fudged, then I think the metric is a useful one. Since this appears to be a politicized area backed by a group with an agenda, I'd like to make sure that there is no jiggery-pokery, but it looks ok initially, at least.
The basic idea for measurement seems far better than the WHO model from a few years ago, but as people have pointed out, the devil is in the details.
The "0-14" category concerns me somewhat on the first view. I know the US is hurt in a number of rankings - most especially infant mortality - because it report a number of pre-9 month births as "births" (and a failure to survive means a hit for infant mortality), whereas a number of other countries would not count the 'birth' where the baby did not survive. I cannot tell from a first glance whether this might have an impact. The latest addendum looked at cannot be found on the web -- you have to go back to the earlier study for methodology.
If the numbers are un-fudged, then I think the metric is a useful one. Since this appears to be a politicized area backed by a group with an agenda, I'd like to make sure that there is no jiggery-pokery, but it looks ok initially, at least.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
I'm also curious if the study took the much higher level of immigration from third-world and second-world countries into account, particularly the flood of illegal Mexican and Central American immigrants. The reason to control for this should be blatantly obvious to anyone who thinks about it for even a moment.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
Any reason given?
If I can find the hard copy I'll transcribe it for you, but from memory, no, except for an implied appeal to the "common knowledge" here that health care in other G-7 countries is horrible because it's socialized.
Last edited:
Why are we debating this? Isn't it the case conservatives in america don't want to be burdened financially by helping fund the healthcare of those less well-off? I mean, it certainly seems to be an issue of greed and not one arrived at after rational thought on how to have a better world. I think it is quite obvious that having universal publicly funded healthcare floats all boats. The healthcare system in America is quite crappy for those who don't have a good health insurance plan.
And why the call for a report looking at "conservative" nations? Isn't it the case that conservatives in many other nations support publicly funded universal healthcare? I just don't see how providing for the well-being of your fellow citizens could not be beneficial to the nation (or humanity). Don't we publicly fund our firemen? Our police? Our national defense? To me, these things all seem pretty similar. I'm sorry to break it to you, but many scientists and doctors aren't fueled by money. When it comes down to it they are fueled by the love of science or the urge to help those in need.
The real issue that we should debate is how to keep so many humans from not having access to affordable, quality healthcare. Our current system provides, generally-okay healthcare. It should probably have added to it a more prevalent preventive plan. What our system lacks is affordability. If I didn't have insurance, a simple visit to the Dr. would cost $75 (I copay $15). That $75 buys one, on average, 18 seconds of the doctor listening to the patient, a blood-pressure check, temperature check, weight height and a prescription for a medication that is likely treating a symptom of some underlying problem (but then you have to pay more for the medicine). It works. It could work better and it is prohibitively expensive for many Americans. I certainly remember a time when I was doubled over in pain, to the point that I was getting tunnel vision, for hours and then drove past the hospital a few times before finally deciding that I better go in. The delay was caused by the fear of the bill. I didn't have insurance and didn't want to chance having a huge emercency room bill for something that turned out to be nothing. After going and having them check my vitals and drink some friggin GI cocktail, they sent me on my not-so-merry way with a bill that was at least a full 2 week pay check for me. How is that not a problem to conservatives? Or is it?
Yes, I have insurance now. I worked my tail off to get in to a job with good benefits (and better pay) so that I didn't have to go through crap like that anymore. I think that what is everyone should try to do. BUT, what about those years when they are working toward getting in to a job with benefits? Or what about those, who through no fault of their own, can't land a good job? Isn't it, at some point, dangerous to have the cost of healthcare be a deterant to seeking medical treatment for a potentially serious health problem?
-ex-conservative Joe
And why the call for a report looking at "conservative" nations? Isn't it the case that conservatives in many other nations support publicly funded universal healthcare? I just don't see how providing for the well-being of your fellow citizens could not be beneficial to the nation (or humanity). Don't we publicly fund our firemen? Our police? Our national defense? To me, these things all seem pretty similar. I'm sorry to break it to you, but many scientists and doctors aren't fueled by money. When it comes down to it they are fueled by the love of science or the urge to help those in need.
The real issue that we should debate is how to keep so many humans from not having access to affordable, quality healthcare. Our current system provides, generally-okay healthcare. It should probably have added to it a more prevalent preventive plan. What our system lacks is affordability. If I didn't have insurance, a simple visit to the Dr. would cost $75 (I copay $15). That $75 buys one, on average, 18 seconds of the doctor listening to the patient, a blood-pressure check, temperature check, weight height and a prescription for a medication that is likely treating a symptom of some underlying problem (but then you have to pay more for the medicine). It works. It could work better and it is prohibitively expensive for many Americans. I certainly remember a time when I was doubled over in pain, to the point that I was getting tunnel vision, for hours and then drove past the hospital a few times before finally deciding that I better go in. The delay was caused by the fear of the bill. I didn't have insurance and didn't want to chance having a huge emercency room bill for something that turned out to be nothing. After going and having them check my vitals and drink some friggin GI cocktail, they sent me on my not-so-merry way with a bill that was at least a full 2 week pay check for me. How is that not a problem to conservatives? Or is it?
Yes, I have insurance now. I worked my tail off to get in to a job with good benefits (and better pay) so that I didn't have to go through crap like that anymore. I think that what is everyone should try to do. BUT, what about those years when they are working toward getting in to a job with benefits? Or what about those, who through no fault of their own, can't land a good job? Isn't it, at some point, dangerous to have the cost of healthcare be a deterant to seeking medical treatment for a potentially serious health problem?
-ex-conservative Joe
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
I grew up with socialized medicine - the military.
Cain
Straussian
I think this is more or less correct, but if we want to be charitable we can soften some of rhetoric. Conservatives, motivated by greed or not, seem to have an almost a priori belief that tax-payer supported health-care is outside the scope of (limited) government. For this reason conservatives (and libertarians to an even greater extent) do not argue in good faith because it's a moot point. You can marshal study after study after study demonstrating the efficiency of socialized medicine but this runs contrary to their natural rights orthodoxy. Global warming denial serves as a classic case of head-in-sand syndrome. People with a less rigid belief system -- but directly committed to the well-being of everyone -- will be open to more solutions. They ask, "OK, what is the best way to reduce sickness?" If it's by market mechanisms, fine. If it needs taxpayer support, the government insulating (some) people from harm, then so be it. If it means vouchers, go for it. Doctrinaire conservatives will always object on the grounds that some people are financing other peoples' health-care, and this goes well-beyond the proper role of government. It's OK for national defense, but not in other areas; rational cost-benefit analysis has no place. Spending billions in case of an anthrax attack is open for debate; increasing funding for children's health insurance (s-chip) is not.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,837
Isn't it the case that liberals in America don't want to be burdened financially by funding their own health-care?
I mean, it certainly seems to be an issue of greed and not one arrived at after rational thought on how to have a better world.
What happens to the system when there are too many consumers and not enough producers? You have heard of the problems with Social Security?
It does seem that this issue is the epitome of "cutting off your nose to spite your face".
As far as we can tell, distributing healthcare on the basis of need, rather than the ability to pay, leads to better outcomes provided in a more efficient manner. However, to some people, this is a very bad thing if it means that people who are undeserving will no longer be punished.
Linda
As far as we can tell, distributing healthcare on the basis of need, rather than the ability to pay, leads to better outcomes provided in a more efficient manner. However, to some people, this is a very bad thing if it means that people who are undeserving will no longer be punished.
Linda
Funny, a friend of mine who actually has lived in Germany and Britain commented on how wonderful it is, particularly in germany.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
Well, it didn't take long for the conversation about the study to end.
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,837
That is because the study head-line was shown to be BS. The true believers have already internalized the idea presented in the head-line.
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2006
- Messages
- 26,485
That is because the study head-line was shown to be BS. The true believers have already internalized the idea presented in the head-line.
Only in your mind Mr Gnome. Only in your mind. (Benefit of doubt and all.)
JEROME DA GNOME
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 8,837
Tell us about the Doctor shortage in Canada.
It is difficult to get health-care when there are not enough doctors, would you not agree?
Of course Canada wants the US to have social health-care, then they would not be losing so many doctors to the better system in the US.
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
When I was 15 or 16 my dad was assigned to Germany (Air Force, see my comment above about the U.S. military and its health care system) and I went for a week long DYA (Dependant Youth Activity) trip where we hiked the alps, whitewater rafted, etc. In the waning days of the trip I came down with some sort of illness that warrented a trip to the local German hospital. My only objection.. and it was because a number of my travel companions were watching, was the doctor wanting to use a rectal thermometer. Otherwise I felt the German socialized health care system in the mid-80s was similar to the care I received in military hospitals.
I think it was on NPR that I heard that most complaints about waiting times for surgery in Canada weren't due to the availibity of medical care, but because patients could chose their surgeon were due to his/her schedule being too full.
Eskarina
Touched By His Noodly Appendages
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2007
- Messages
- 637
Thanks for your trouble.
So, the German healthcare system isn't working? That's odd, I have a different impression, and I've been living here for almost all of my life.
It certainly isn't perfect. It's annoying and bureaucratic at times, and, contrary to popular opinion, it isn't free, but at least I don't have to worry much about what gets covered and what not.