|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,518
Posts545,710
Members14,419
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155 |
I do find cost is only one element that sways my choices. I agree. That's another reason I advocate universal health care: better health outcomes. Most EU countries have significantly higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US. So does our next door neighbor, Canada. I'm not comfortable with seeing my country being outperformed. Are you? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 625
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 625 |
Here's more fact, from The New England Journal of Medicine: "In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada.
"Conclusions: The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system." Still waiting for some facts from the nay-sayers.  Heck Jack, I don't care if they give all that extra money to the doctors, nurses, therapists and other folks in the trenches. They don't have to "save" it, they have to redirect it and get everyone health care in the bargain. But, you know the problem. As I understand it, both Hillary and Obama have "plans" for universal health care that essentially extends the present system by requirement to "all." There is to be some penalty for not having coverage. Heck, I bet one of the "penalties" is that you can't get into many places for help. What changes? As you point out, the money is already there. It just needs to be redistributed and spread out. And the doctors and other professionals should be BETTER off. Jake
R. Craig Clark
jakearoo(at)cox.net
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,618 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,618 Likes: 7 |
I do find cost is only one element that sways my choices. I agree. That's another reason I advocate universal health care: better health outcomes. Most EU countries have significantly higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality than the US. So does our next door neighbor, Canada. I'm not comfortable with seeing my country being outperformed. Are you? So - how does life expectancy and lower infant mortality directly relate to the Health Care system - the US doesn't have the same ethnic make up or Life Styles as the ones you mentioned. If you want to make a valid comparison of health out comes you need to compare those who were treated for a similar health issue under the US System and the one you want to compare it against.
Mine's a tale that can't be told, my freedom I hold dear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155 |
So - how does life expectancy and lower infant mortality directly relate to the Health Care system - the US doesn't have the same ethnic make up or Life Styles as the ones you mentioned. If you want to make a valid comparison of health out comes you need to compare those who were treated for a similar health issue under the US System and the one you want to compare it against. No fair! You can nitpick my facts, but I can't nitpick your facts - because you don't provide any.  The ethnic mix and life styles in developed countries vary across the board - compare Italy, say, with Iceland, or Spain with Canada or New Zealand or France (which has a higher percentage of foreign-born than we do). They have only three things in common: universal health care, lower costs and better outcomes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 319
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 319 |
obama is an overt enemy agent,hilly is a covert enemy agent and mcain is a repulsive anti gun RINO .YUUCK!What is an honest man to do?
N.R.A lifer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,618 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,618 Likes: 7 |
Jack - you are parroting the WHOs facts ( I don't mean that in a bad way) I don't know much about Health Care reporting Data - I do know a little about comparing Data.
Mine's a tale that can't be told, my freedom I hold dear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155 |
postoak, if you have better facts - if you have any facts - I'd be glad to see them. Meanwhile, I'd say the W.H.O., The New England Journal of Medicine, The Economist and CAHI (representing the private health insurance industry), make a fairly respectable spectrum of sources. And they are all pretty much in agreement.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,618 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,618 Likes: 7 |
Ok - Canada vs. US - US has a lower mortality rate after Heart Attack treatment.
Mine's a tale that can't be told, my freedom I hold dear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,618 Likes: 7
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,618 Likes: 7 |
Fact- the below is from the WHO website
Problems in accuracy of records
Although the International Classification of Diseases is intended to provide a standard way of recording underlying cause of death, comparison of cause of death data over time and across countries should be undertaken with caution. Several new features and changes from ICD9 to ICD10 have great impact on the interpretation of the statistical data. The implications of these changes in ICD10 should be taken into account when making trend comparisons and estimates for causes of death. ICD10 is more detailed with about 10 000 conditions for classifying causes of death compared to around 5 100 in ICD9. The rules for selecting the underlying cause of death have been re-evaluated and sometimes changed. Accuracy in diagnosing causes of death still varies from one country to another. In addition the process of coding underlying causes of death involves some extent of misattribution or miscoding even in countries where causes are assigned by medically qualified staff. Main reasons are incorrect or systematic biases in diagnosis, incorrect or incomplete death certificates, misinterpretation of ICD rules for selection of the underlying cause, and variations in the use of coding categories for unknown and ill-defined causes.
Last edited by postoak; 02/23/08 01:02 AM.
Mine's a tale that can't be told, my freedom I hold dear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 362
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 362 |
Postak,
I love your material. We may not solve a problem but we will have given it a fine looking over.
Jack,
Since I have not reached your conclusions, I have not felt my country is being outperformed.
And the debate goes on,
Ron
|
|
|
|
|
