posted
I know this may come as no surprise to most, but I loathe the use of this list by WHO.It is so subjective and based on several difficult to quantify criteria...
Factors forMeasuring the Quality of Health Care
The WHO health care rankings result from an index of health-related statistics. As with any index, it is important to consider how it was constructed, as the construction affects the results. WHO’s index is based on five factors, weighted as follows:
posted
lol ok. That's legitimate. I had to look at the description in your link to figure out how they would even quantify such a term.
quote: Financial Fairness. A health system’s financial fairness (FF) is measured by determining a household’s contribution to health expenditure as a percentage of household income (beyond subsistence), then looking at the dispersion of this percentage over all households. The wider the dispersion in the percentage of household income spent on health care, the worse a nation will perform on the FF factor and the overall index (other things being equal).
If I am reading the description right then in a society where wealth levels vary greatly there is no way to NOT fail the Financial Fairness factor unless it is a single payer system where everyone pays a fixed percentage of income into healthcare.
I wonder where the rankings would shake out if that part of the grading system were removed?
Anyway CCM, that is an example (if a disputed one) of how the ppd list and the quality of care list would match up.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
posted
the CIA factbook has US life expectancy at 49th
This entry contains the average number of years to be lived by a group of people born in the same year, if mortality at each age remains constant in the future. The entry includes total population as well as the male and female components. Life expectancy at birth is also a measure of overall quality of life in a country and summarizes the mortality at all ages. It can also be thought of as indicating the potential return on investment in human capital and is necessary for the calculation of various actuarial measures.
posted
the US spends more than 16% of GDP on helath care and that is project to double again in the next 20 years: Americans widely believe that while the our health system is expensive it is nevertheless the best in the world. However, a new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development suggests otherwise.
According to the OECD, the U.S. spends 5% of GDP more on health than France, the nation with the second highest level of health spending among the 30 wealthy countries in the organization. The average for all OECD countries is 8.9% of GDP.
We spend $7,290 per person on average versus $2,964 among all OECD countries. Norway, the nation with the second most expensive health system on a per capita basis, spends $4,763. (Currency conversions based on purchasing power parity.)
Of course, Americans know that they pay a lot for health; the rising cost of health insurance for employers is the main reason why wages have been stagnant for years.
The international data, however, show no evidence that increasing government's share of health care expenditures raises health spending as a share of GDP. The top five countries with the highest government share of total health outlays spend almost exactly the same percentage of GDP on health as the lowest five countries excluding the U.S.: 8.2% of GDP on average for the former versus 8.3% of GDP for the latter. (I left out the U.S. because it skews the data; the bottom five countries including the U.S. spend 9.7% of GDP on health on average.)
posted
We don't glass thats the crime of the whole system. Health care of a nation is different than making cars or steel. If everyone was born healthy fine we would have a good system. But that is not so it really takes an entire nation to view health care as a right which in my opion it is.
Look at what is happening now because of economic conditions insurance companies say they have a right to raise rates some cases up to 79% mostly 39%,Why is this? Insurance co's say they are loosing a big percentage of young workers through lay offs and no new hires so they are loosing money because all they have are us old folks with health problems. That is why insurance co's let the government take on medicare.
This way of thinking is what the insurance co's call the law of large numbers and they say it must apply to all sittuations and for the market place in our society it does. As for a moral sittuation such as the health of a nation and its people the answer is no. As other countries have found out the exspence of health care is very small compared to the good it does for a people who have to live together and productiveity of a nation.The longer we let these criminals influance our nation and politicians with our own money that we have turned over to them for health protection that they try not to provide things will never change.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
The biggest problem with using this stat to compare health care systems is the lack of uniform definition. There is no set criteria between nations to decide what is listed in this category. This leads to skewed data sets that are impossible to compare (if one is being objectively honest at least).
Second, the life expectancy:
This one has more to do with lifestyles of a nation that it does with the healthcare system. You can have the best system in the world but if you eat lard by the pound and drink soda\beer by the gallon you're going to die sooner than a population living on rice and beans. That's simply limitations of the human body, not a lack of the health care system's ability to prolong its use.
We're the fattest, most unhealthy nation in the world. Few would even try to dispute that. This is what is causing us to die sooner as a nation, not the quality of care from our health care providers.
That's why the WHO listing is bogus. It is based on subjective statistics created by people who want more government involvement in health care already and the improper use of statistics that are neither uniform nor singularly defining.
posted
the ability to pay them for there work what else if not by insuance than by government.
But the answer is meaningless the insurance co's are involved and they always will be with any health care reform in this country so your question is meaningless.
And I don't remember you asking me any questions
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Every body knows that A government plan would be run like medicare. Would it work yes it would with the mix of healthy people in the mix it would work as well as with the insurance co's. Why do it is because people would have more control
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.
IP: Logged |
The biggest problem with using this stat to compare health care systems is the lack of uniform definition. There is no set criteria between nations to decide what is listed in this category. This leads to skewed data sets that are impossible to compare (if one is being objectively honest at least).
Second, the life expectancy:
This one has more to do with lifestyles of a nation that it does with the healthcare system. You can have the best system in the world but if you eat lard by the pound and drink soda\beer by the gallon you're going to die sooner than a population living on rice and beans. That's simply limitations of the human body, not a lack of the health care system's ability to prolong its use.
We're the fattest, most unhealthy nation in the world. Few would even try to dispute that. This is what is causing us to die sooner as a nation, not the quality of care from our health care providers.
That's why the WHO listing is bogus. It is based on subjective statistics created by people who want more government involvement in health care already and the improper use of statistics that are neither uniform nor singularly defining.
Bogus political crap.
i asked you to give me something (anything) to back up the claim that we have the best health care in the world, or at least above the 30th place, and your response is to call the country a bunch of fat slobs who are killing themselves thru stupidity and lack of self discipline?
LOL... hopeless. esp. politically
how come Americans buy the same drugs from Canada or at least try to for less than they pay here?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:i asked you to give me something (anything) to back up the claim that we have the best health care in the world, or at least above the 30th place,
Glass, the only metric I need is the human one..
If you have the means, and can get health care anywhere in the world, where do people go?
That's right...here.
Even foreign policy makers come here. (cough)Danny Williams(cough)
As for the U.S. buying it drugs from Canada? Everyone wants to save a penny and if Canada is willing to subsidize the world's drug consumption then so be it. (shrug)
quote:and your response is to call the country a bunch of fat slobs who are killing themselves thru stupidity and lack of self discipline?
LOL... hopeless. esp. politically
I'm not trying to be political, Glass. You should know that by now.
Do you deny my claim? We are killing ourselves through our lifestyle choices. It's not medicine's fault we're dying sooner. It's our own damn fault and it's about time we recognize that.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by raybond: Every body knows that A government plan would be run like medicare. Would it work yes it would with the mix of healthy people in the mix it would work as well as with the insurance co's. Why do it is because people would have more control
You really think that the people will have any control?
posted
If you have the means, and can get health care anywhere in the world, where do people go?
what metric do you have to show that?
that's what i'm asking.
i know plenty of people that were buying their meds from outside the US cuz they were the SAME meds at half price or even less...
what does "having means" mean? isn't that more of your squooshy statistics?
America was founded by people that were running away from the Aristocratic Governance of Europe.
the whole point of this health care debate is the having the means is escaping the average US citizen.
the average household income in the US is just under 50,000$ and the average household cost of insurance is just under 15,000$ and going up very fast.
average people without insurance cannot afford to get cancer treatments
What Does It Cost to Have Cancer? February 23rd, 2007
We all hear that cancer is big business, involving expensive treatment, but how expensive is it exactly?
I was recently reviewing my medical expenses for last year and was shocked at the numbers. I decided to share them to give my readers an idea of what cancer treatment can really cost. Keep in mind that this is nine months of treatment for early-stage breast cancer in a 40-year old woman with a strong family history. All treatment was provided at cancer centers in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Total cost of care billed: $224,725 Total paid by insurance: $134,110 Total paid by patient: $5,706
Includes: screening and diagnostic tests, genetic testing, predictive (Oncotype-DX) testing, surgery (lumpectomy, sentinel node biopsy, additional breast biopsy), four rounds of Taxotere/Cytoxan chemotherapy, three doses of Neulasta, two doses of Arinesp, setup and treatment for 33 rounds of breast radiation, plus all associated doctors visits.
Does not include: cost of non-injectable prescriptions (my cost was a few hundred dollars for my prescription co-pays), cost of parking at the medical center (also hundreds), my hypothermia mitts and slippers, and any over-the-counter drugs to help with treatment side effects.
I think we can agree that $224,725 is a lot of money! If you add the amount I paid to the amount that insurance paid, you'll see that the cancer centers received about 62% of what they billed. In some cases, insurance paid all of the billing. In most cases, they paid 50-70%. In a few cases, I have no idea how the provider is able to operate, as insurance paid only 15% of the billed amount!
posted
It is a big surprise that 20 percent of people with health insurance can't afford to have the cancer therapy they need to save their lives," said John Seffrin of the American Cancer Society.
The survey, jointly conducted by ACS and the Kaiser Family Foundation, includes 20 profiles of cancer patients and their struggles to find affordable medical coverage.
The report was presented at a news conference Thursday, the same day U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had surgery for pancreatic cancer in New York.
Ten-year-old Taylor Wilhite's leukemia means cancer in her bones and blood. The cost of treatment and medicine since last March is now approaching the lifetime limit of $1 million from her father's family health insurance plan.
posted
The main problem with that is your vote only stipulates that you can pick one candidate over another. It doesn't stipulate what that candidate does once elected.
quote:Originally posted by raybond: I hope Rush Limbaugh the dopper is the first to go fat slob that he is
Aren't you the compassionate one. Has Rush Limbaugh done something personal to you we don't know about?
Compassion has never been the motivating factor for progressives, Lockman. It's always been about 'fairness' and 'justice'. Love for their fellow man, regardless of political opinion, has never been the overriding goal.
Sadly, the actions have never been as lofty as the rhetoric...as we see...
IP: Logged |
posted
LOL, now it's "progressives" that are the enemy SF? you been drinking that koolaid too?
i got news for ya, without "progressives"? children would be still be working in factories, slavery would still be legal, and your wife and mother and sister and daughters would be without the vote.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Would you prefer 'liberal'? How about 'leftists'? 'Statists'?
(Shrug)
Any ideology, including those on the right, that move the power of choice away from the individual in favor of the 'rights of the whole' is not about compassion...it's about control.
As regarding the last few posts, hate does not excuse hate. I don't care how much one disagrees with someone politically, that does not lessen their worth as a human being.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Would you prefer 'liberal'? How about 'leftists'? 'Statists'?
(Shrug)
Any ideology, including those on the right, that move the power of choice away from the individual in favor of the 'rights of the whole' is not about compassion...it's about control.
As regarding the last few posts, hate does not excuse hate. I don't care how much one disagrees with someone politically, that does not lessen their worth as a human being.
i prefer? what's that got to do with it?
you think we should not be progressive in this country?
cuz i have no problem with being progressive, and quite frankly you put yourself into a strange position to claim we should not progress.
it's a bad term.
Bush got away for years calling himself a conservative and others who called themselves conservative voted for him because he said he was.
i don't know anybody who has run on the "progressive" platform, but i m not joking about the sufferage issue or the slavery issue as being progressive.
Any ideology, including those on the right, that move the power of choice away from the individual in favor of the 'rights of the whole' is not about compassion...it's about control.
yeah and i seem to recall that you took the position that corporations should have the same rights as individuals? LOL... that is the same kind of power grab and dilutes/reduces the power of the individual
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I still disagree on the Corporations question, Glass, but that is a debate for other threads.
All idelogies have some good in them. That is how 'normal' people get enamored of them. However, that does not extend a blanket 'ok-ness' to all ideas espouced by said ideology. Was getting rid of slavery and the acceptance of women's sufferage 'progressive'? By one definition, of course. But neither were solely the property of the Progressive movement.
Most of the ideas that are being defined as 'Progressive' right now are simply moves toward a version of 'equality' that is neither realistic nor sustainable.
Each idea must be evaluated on it's own merits...and this reform bill has been found lacking. We all agree that something needs to be done...I just don't think that this is it.
IP: Logged |
posted
i don't like it either, and i don't think it's very bright pushing this thru without an up or down vote so people can be held answerable.
i think we should have a crappy govt run public option that poor people can at least have access to health care. it would not cost US anymore than the system we have now, it should be cheaper if get some basic care to people before they get really expensively sick.
but for some reason that scares the "for profit" crew...
we are in this exact place right now because the GOP refuses to do anything at all. they have blocked any type of progress and if they win back control because of that? we as a nation will be no better off than we were two-5 years ago, or are today.
what was that old song? if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice?
the GOP has set out to "prove" that Obama cannot lead a nation, by not allowing the nation to be led IMO. That's not leadership, that's constipation
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
