3 replies to this topic

[stocks]

The New York Times recently declared "the disturbing truth ... that ... the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care."

As usual, the Times editors get it wrong.


.. it strains credulity to hear that the U.S. ranks far from the top. Sick people come to the United States for treatment. When was the last time you heard of someone leaving this country to get medical care?

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.

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.


http://www.realclear..._on_whos_h.html

[OEXCHAOS]

It is imperative to realize that there are an array of socialist looters out there who are well positioned and more than happy to engage in any manner of intellectually dishonest canard to further their agenda of centralization of state power and dismantling of capitalism. When "World" or "U.N." is in any organization's title, start looking for the looters. You may not find them, but chances are, you will. Mark

[maineman]

We have superb technology, information, diagnostics, treatments. We have exquisitely trained physicians, surgeons, neurosurgeons, diagnosticians, etc. We can diagnose and treat just about anything. It is truly amazing. But that has nothing to do with a generic term like "health care". Almost 50 million Americans have no insurance or access to care. They are unable to avail themselves. The "average" American is a nincompoop about health and health care. They'll take garlic pills based on a Larry King radio ad, but won't go and get a colonoscopy or a blood pressure check. They demand antibiotics for sniffles, They don't eat right or exercise. They smoke. But when they get sick they assume that "health care is a right" or privelege. They demand MRI scans of their heads for a headache and will go from doctor to doctor until they get one. And on and on. Good qualtiy health maintenance is all about diet, exercise, vaccination and simple preventive care and screening. We can afford to give that to every single person in AMerica at very little cost. A lot less than it costs to fund the FDA or the war in Iraq. Trust me, though, you are not going to hear any good solutions from any of the candidates or anyone else. This system is too far gone. I have one suggestion, though. Take away health insurance for six months. Make people pay for medical care. Then people will learn to ask, "Do I really need that test?" Do I really need that pill or can I solve the problem with diet and exercise? Do I have to spend another night in the hospital? Does it really cost 1 thousand bucks a day for a hospital room? Does it really cost 4 bucks for a Lunesta sleeping pill? Maybe I can learn to fall asleep some other way.... Until so-called healthcare is no longer subsidized the system will continue to spin out of control. But in the meantime, this is still the best place to get surgery, diagnostics, open heart repairs, etc. etc. If you can pay... mm

[stocks]

The Commonwealth Fund study divides "quality" into right (effective) care, safe care, coordinated care and patient-centered care. The U.S. placed fifth or sixth in the last three. But where did the U.S. place in "right care"? First. "Right care" is the most important criterion because it includes things like how often women have mammograms and whether diabetics get proper treatment. The Commonwealth Fund ranked the U.S. last in "equity": "Americans with below-average incomes were much more likely than their counterparts in other countries to report not visiting a physician when sick, not getting a recommended test, treatment or follow-up care ... because of costs." But how much of that is due to the government's increasing the cost of care and insurance through mandates, a tax code that encourages reliance on expensive insurance and bureaucratic red tape? The Commonwealth Fund's study has other problems. It was based on telephone interviews with patients and doctors. So it grades nations on people's perceptions without controlling for their expectations. Yet patients who live in a country with long waits for medical care and bureaucratic inefficiency may have low expectations.