HOW do they justify these costs?

[dhise]

Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS

I'm not defending our present system, it's broke, only an idiot would try to defend the status quo. But making health care a right thats controled by a living and breathing federal government is foolish beyond belief. Exactly how much of this country's GDP do you want the government to control, everything?!?


That's the whole problem. There is so much money involved that any overhaul of the system will be traumatic without any guarantee that government will be any less corrupt than the corporate system we have now. Other countries like Britain chose their system after WWII when they had nothing and were rebuilding. There wasn't much status quo to get rid of.

 

[LS2JSTS]

Originally Posted By: dhise
Originally Posted By: LS2JSTS

I'm not defending our present system, it's broke, only an idiot would try to defend the status quo. But making health care a right thats controled by a living and breathing federal government is foolish beyond belief. Exactly how much of this country's GDP do you want the government to control, everything?!?


That's the whole problem. There is so much money involved that any overhaul of the system will be traumatic without any guarantee that government will be any less corrupt than the corporate system we have now. Other countries like Britain chose their system after WWII when they had nothing and were rebuilding. There wasn't much status quo to get rid of.


Totally agree.

What hangs me up with any of the current plans being discussed, is that we do know one very important fact. We will have a two tier system from the start, as Congress has already exempted themselves from the "system". How many other privledged groups will be allowed to opt out for their own superior private care. How many of the best Dr's that now work in everymans hospitals will be shuffled to private hospitals that only service the privledged?

When Congress makes itself subject to it's own laws I'll feel much more comfortable with trusting them. Doesn't that make sense? Something is fishy with this "plan" and the fact that the administration has completely run from their promise to make it an open and honest debate is troubling at best.

I fear that "free" care will be far from "equal" care.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: expat
An interesting chart from WHO
http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html


Quote:
The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html

 

[PandaBear]

Tempest:

Do you think that a health care that is best in the world but only affordable to 2/3 of the population is better than a health care that is affordable by everyone but only 2/3 as good as the best?

If so, it is not a "system" but a "privilege". Therefore it is not supposed to be rated as a "system".

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: expat
An interesting chart from WHO
http://www.photius.com/rankings/world_health_performance_ranks.html


Quote:
The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html


"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.

Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.

When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy.

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.

It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south. "

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Tempest:

Do you think that a health care that is best in the world but only affordable to 2/3 of the population is better than a health care that is affordable by everyone but only 2/3 as good as the best?

If so, it is not a "system" but a "privilege". Therefore it is not supposed to be rated as a "system".

Where do you get your numbers? Last "official" count was 30 million people. That's less than 10% of our population. The real number is much lower than that.

You are being dishonest in order to exaggerate. Bad form.

WHO is an entirely subjective Opinion.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: expat
We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem.

Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.

When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.


Never thought of it that way.

Carry on then.

 

[Shannow]

http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/Bankruptcy-2009.pdf

Something to be really proud of.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Last "official" count was 30 million people. That's less than 10% of our population. The real number is much lower than that.

You are being dishonest in order to exaggerate. Bad form.



Where do you get your numbers? You are being dishonest in order to minimize. Bad form.

Edit: How's the recruiting drive going?

 

[benjamming]

Tempest,

I believe the key word (or one of them) in PandaBear's post was affordable. Of course that is subjective. Then you have the type of cases where folks buy a Wii instead of going to the dentist.