Balta1701 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 08:51 AM) He has a point. Could you read, and more importantly comprehend, 1000 pages of legalese in 2 days without anyone helping you do it? That's not a matter of "doing your job," it's a matter of actually being possible. Furthermore...It's not like these bills appear out of no where very often (the Patriot Act being the obvious exception). These bills are negotiated in committees and backrooms for months before they're actually brought up for the first votes on committee. You can make a big deal about the length of things and how scary that is all you want; every word has been parsed over and over by both sides looking to insert or remove advantages for the people that own them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cknolls Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 10:51 AM) He has a point. Could you read, and more importantly comprehend, 1000 pages of legalese in 2 days without anyone helping you do it? That's not a matter of "doing your job," it's a matter of actually being possible. That's above my pay grade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 World’s Best Medical Care? New York Times August 12, 2007 Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,” as President Bush sees it, or provide the “best medical care in the world,” as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care. Michael Moore struck a nerve in his new documentary, “Sicko,” when he extolled the virtues of the government-run health care systems in France, England, Canada and even Cuba while deploring the failures of the largely private insurance system in this country. There is no question that Mr. Moore overstated his case by making foreign systems look almost flawless. But there is a growing body of evidence that, by an array of pertinent yardsticks, the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care. Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light. Insurance coverage. All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. Although the president has blithely said that these people can always get treatment in an emergency room, many studies have shown that people without insurance postpone treatment until a minor illness becomes worse, harming their own health and imposing greater costs. Access. Citizens abroad often face long waits before they can get to see a specialist or undergo elective surgery. Americans typically get prompter attention, although Germany does better. The real barriers here are the costs facing low-income people without insurance or with skimpy coverage. But even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room, and many report having to wait six days or more for an appointment with their own doctors. Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. Americans with below-average incomes are much less likely than their counterparts in other industrialized nations to see a doctor when sick, to fill prescriptions or to get needed tests and follow-up care. Healthy lives. We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick. But the problem is much broader. We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care. The good news is that we have done a better job than other industrialized nations in reducing smoking. The bad news is that our obesity epidemic is the worst in the world. Quality. In a comparison with five other countries, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States first in providing the “right care” for a given condition as defined by standard clinical guidelines and gave it especially high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients. But we scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations. Life and death. In a comparison of five countries, the United States had the best survival rate for breast cancer, second best for cervical cancer and childhood leukemia, worst for kidney transplants, and almost-worst for liver transplants and colorectal cancer. In an eight-country comparison, the United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes and had the second highest death rate from bronchitis, asthma and emphysema. Although several factors can affect these results, it seems likely that the quality of care delivered was a significant contributor. Patient satisfaction. Despite the declarations of their political leaders, many Americans hold surprisingly negative views of their health care system. Polls in Europe and North America seven to nine years ago found that only 40 percent of Americans were satisfied with the nation’s health care system, placing us 14th out of 17 countries. In recent Commonwealth Fund surveys of five countries, American attitudes stand out as the most negative, with a third of the adults surveyed calling for rebuilding the entire system, compared with only 13 percent who feel that way in Britain and 14 percent in Canada. That may be because Americans face higher out-of-pocket costs than citizens elsewhere, are less apt to have a long-term doctor, less able to see a doctor on the same day when sick, and less apt to get their questions answered or receive clear instructions from a doctor. On the other hand, Gallup polls in recent years have shown that three-quarters of the respondents in the United States, in Canada and in Britain rate their personal care as excellent or good, so it could be hard to motivate these people for the wholesale change sought by the disaffected. Use of information technology. Shockingly, despite our vaunted prowess in computers, software and the Internet, much of our health care system is still operating in the dark ages of paper records and handwritten scrawls. American primary care doctors lag years behind doctors in other advanced nations in adopting electronic medical records or prescribing medications electronically. This makes it harder to coordinate care, spot errors and adhere to standard clinical guidelines. Top-of-the-line care. Despite our poor showing in many international comparisons, it is doubtful that many Americans, faced with a life-threatening illness, would rather be treated elsewhere. We tend to think that our very best medical centers are the best in the world. But whether this is a realistic assessment or merely a cultural preference for the home team is difficult to say. Only when better measures of clinical excellence are developed will discerning medical shoppers know for sure who is the best of the best. With health care emerging as a major issue in the presidential campaign and in Congress, it will be important to get beyond empty boasts that this country has “the best health care system in the world” and turn instead to fixing its very real defects. The main goal should be to reduce the huge number of uninsured, who are a major reason for our poor standing globally. But there is also plenty of room to improve our coordination of care, our use of computerized records, communications between doctors and patients, and dozens of other factors that impair the quality of care. The world’s most powerful economy should be able to provide a health care system that really is the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jul 27, 2009 -> 09:51 PM) World’s Best Medical Care? New York Times August 12, 2007 Many Americans are under the delusion that we have “the best health care system in the world,” as President Bush sees it, or provide the “best medical care in the world,” as Rudolph Giuliani declared last week. That may be true at many top medical centers. But the disturbing truth is that this country lags well behind other advanced nations in delivering timely and effective care. Michael Moore struck a nerve in his new documentary, “Sicko,” when he extolled the virtues of the government-run health care systems in France, England, Canada and even Cuba while deploring the failures of the largely private insurance system in this country. There is no question that Mr. Moore overstated his case by making foreign systems look almost flawless. But there is a growing body of evidence that, by an array of pertinent yardsticks, the United States is a laggard not a leader in providing good medical care. Seven years ago, the World Health Organization made the first major effort to rank the health systems of 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. More recently, the highly regarded Commonwealth Fund has pioneered in comparing the United States with other advanced nations through surveys of patients and doctors and analysis of other data. Its latest report, issued in May, ranked the United States last or next-to-last compared with five other nations — Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom — on most measures of performance, including quality of care and access to it. Other comparative studies also put the United States in a relatively bad light. Insurance coverage. All other major industrialized nations provide universal health coverage, and most of them have comprehensive benefit packages with no cost-sharing by the patients. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. Although the president has blithely said that these people can always get treatment in an emergency room, many studies have shown that people without insurance postpone treatment until a minor illness becomes worse, harming their own health and imposing greater costs. Access. Citizens abroad often face long waits before they can get to see a specialist or undergo elective surgery. Americans typically get prompter attention, although Germany does better. The real barriers here are the costs facing low-income people without insurance or with skimpy coverage. But even Americans with above-average incomes find it more difficult than their counterparts abroad to get care on nights or weekends without going to an emergency room, and many report having to wait six days or more for an appointment with their own doctors. Fairness. The United States ranks dead last on almost all measures of equity because we have the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. Americans with below-average incomes are much less likely than their counterparts in other industrialized nations to see a doctor when sick, to fill prescriptions or to get needed tests and follow-up care. Healthy lives. We have known for years that America has a high infant mortality rate, so it is no surprise that we rank last among 23 nations by that yardstick. But the problem is much broader. We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care. The good news is that we have done a better job than other industrialized nations in reducing smoking. The bad news is that our obesity epidemic is the worst in the world. Quality. In a comparison with five other countries, the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States first in providing the “right care” for a given condition as defined by standard clinical guidelines and gave it especially high marks for preventive care, like Pap smears and mammograms to detect early-stage cancers, and blood tests and cholesterol checks for hypertensive patients. But we scored poorly in coordinating the care of chronically ill patients, in protecting the safety of patients, and in meeting their needs and preferences, which drove our overall quality rating down to last place. American doctors and hospitals kill patients through surgical and medical mistakes more often than their counterparts in other industrialized nations. Life and death. In a comparison of five countries, the United States had the best survival rate for breast cancer, second best for cervical cancer and childhood leukemia, worst for kidney transplants, and almost-worst for liver transplants and colorectal cancer. In an eight-country comparison, the United States ranked last in years of potential life lost to circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases and diabetes and had the second highest death rate from bronchitis, asthma and emphysema. Although several factors can affect these results, it seems likely that the quality of care delivered was a significant contributor. Patient satisfaction. Despite the declarations of their political leaders, many Americans hold surprisingly negative views of their health care system. Polls in Europe and North America seven to nine years ago found that only 40 percent of Americans were satisfied with the nation’s health care system, placing us 14th out of 17 countries. In recent Commonwealth Fund surveys of five countries, American attitudes stand out as the most negative, with a third of the adults surveyed calling for rebuilding the entire system, compared with only 13 percent who feel that way in Britain and 14 percent in Canada. That may be because Americans face higher out-of-pocket costs than citizens elsewhere, are less apt to have a long-term doctor, less able to see a doctor on the same day when sick, and less apt to get their questions answered or receive clear instructions from a doctor. On the other hand, Gallup polls in recent years have shown that three-quarters of the respondents in the United States, in Canada and in Britain rate their personal care as excellent or good, so it could be hard to motivate these people for the wholesale change sought by the disaffected. Use of information technology. Shockingly, despite our vaunted prowess in computers, software and the Internet, much of our health care system is still operating in the dark ages of paper records and handwritten scrawls. American primary care doctors lag years behind doctors in other advanced nations in adopting electronic medical records or prescribing medications electronically. This makes it harder to coordinate care, spot errors and adhere to standard clinical guidelines. Top-of-the-line care. Despite our poor showing in many international comparisons, it is doubtful that many Americans, faced with a life-threatening illness, would rather be treated elsewhere. We tend to think that our very best medical centers are the best in the world. But whether this is a realistic assessment or merely a cultural preference for the home team is difficult to say. Only when better measures of clinical excellence are developed will discerning medical shoppers know for sure who is the best of the best. With health care emerging as a major issue in the presidential campaign and in Congress, it will be important to get beyond empty boasts that this country has “the best health care system in the world” and turn instead to fixing its very real defects. The main goal should be to reduce the huge number of uninsured, who are a major reason for our poor standing globally. But there is also plenty of room to improve our coordination of care, our use of computerized records, communications between doctors and patients, and dozens of other factors that impair the quality of care. The world’s most powerful economy should be able to provide a health care system that really is the best. Almost all of your bolded points have been discredited through multiple sources. But please, let's continue to make sure that we talk about how bad everything is here in our country. USA SUCKS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Post some of these sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 08:02 AM) Post some of these sources. Heck, I'd like to see the original sources as well, not just the discrediting ones. I understand it says "WHO Said...", but I'd like to know more. I may have to go Googling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 08:02 AM) Post some of these sources. I'm too lazy. But I'm sick of all the SICKO quotes being ran around as the gosphel. It's all in how you want to ask the questions and formulate the so-called surveys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 12:54 PM) Almost all of your bolded points have been discredited through multiple sources. But please, let's continue to make sure that we talk about how bad everything is here in our country. USA SUCKS! what legitimate sources have discredited them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 08:35 AM) what legitimate sources have discredited them? None, according to "liberals". I'm not going to waste my time, but over the last couple of years, I've read a lot that discredits most of those SICKO points. These stats are cherry picked to prove points, just like the other side cherry picks the other side to make it look worse then it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 The point I was trying to make is that there is a pretty general consensus that something is wrong and at the very least we need to change a lot of rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 09:15 AM) The point I was trying to make is that there is a pretty general consensus that something is wrong and at the very least we need to change a lot of rules. I don't think ANYONE has said otherwise. But, government take over of health care is not the way to go, period. And my prediction of what would happen appears to be happening... I said somewhere back in this thread that the "compromise" would be that they take the "government option" off the table, in name only, and would pass rules that would force insurance companies to do exactly what they say anyway - which is the same thing, but taking this "option" off the table to make it look like they're compromising. I said it was a trojan horse, and sure enough, it looks that is exactly what is happening in the "senate agreement". Frankly, it's still government takeover of health care, now they're just changing the packaging of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clyons Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 08:07 AM) Heck, I'd like to see the original sources as well, not just the discrediting ones. I understand it says "WHO Said...", but I'd like to know more. I may have to go Googling. I'm pretty sure the obesity and infant mortality points are valid, and quickly found the following: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/health/07stat.html http://abcnews.go.com/Health/GlobalHealth/story?id=1266515 http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fa...08worldfat.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 does anyone know if we truly are the only industrialized nation in the world without universal healthcare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 09:53 AM) does anyone know if we truly are the only industrialized nation in the world without universal healthcare? There are several sources that say no. I just don't have time to look for them. /kap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 02:03 PM) None, according to "liberals". I'm not going to waste my time, but over the last couple of years, I've read a lot that discredits most of those SICKO points. These stats are cherry picked to prove points, just like the other side cherry picks the other side to make it look worse then it is. but dont cherrypick my info either. it did have some positive things about the current US system too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 02:58 PM) There are several sources that say no. I just don't have time to look for them. /kap i guess it comes down to the definition of industrialized nation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiSox_Sonix Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 10:53 AM) does anyone know if we truly are the only industrialized nation in the world without universal healthcare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 10:25 AM) I don't think ANYONE has said otherwise. But, government take over of health care is not the way to go, period. And my prediction of what would happen appears to be happening... I said somewhere back in this thread that the "compromise" would be that they take the "government option" off the table, in name only, and would pass rules that would force insurance companies to do exactly what they say anyway - which is the same thing, but taking this "option" off the table to make it look like they're compromising. I said it was a trojan horse, and sure enough, it looks that is exactly what is happening in the "senate agreement". Frankly, it's still government takeover of health care, now they're just changing the packaging of it. I want to see the entire industry somehow forced to change from its current model. It's going to piss some people off, I know, but they can't really see what's happening and they don't care because it's not like there will be mass layoffs in the industry. But someone needs to tell them that choosing profitability over overall quality and long-term sustainability is not a smart thing to do. If they don't believe it, have them go ask GM how that worked out. Except GM actually had to answer to consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 09:25 AM) I don't think ANYONE has said otherwise. But, government take over of health care is not the way to go, period. And my prediction of what would happen appears to be happening... I said somewhere back in this thread that the "compromise" would be that they take the "government option" off the table, in name only, and would pass rules that would force insurance companies to do exactly what they say anyway - which is the same thing, but taking this "option" off the table to make it look like they're compromising. I said it was a trojan horse, and sure enough, it looks that is exactly what is happening in the "senate agreement". Frankly, it's still government takeover of health care, now they're just changing the packaging of it. I don't know why you bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 09:25 AM) I don't think ANYONE has said otherwise. But, government take over of health care is not the way to go, period. And my prediction of what would happen appears to be happening... I said somewhere back in this thread that the "compromise" would be that they take the "government option" off the table, in name only, and would pass rules that would force insurance companies to do exactly what they say anyway - which is the same thing, but taking this "option" off the table to make it look like they're compromising. I said it was a trojan horse, and sure enough, it looks that is exactly what is happening in the "senate agreement". Frankly, it's still government takeover of health care, now they're just changing the packaging of it. Do your parents and grandparents refuse government controlled Medicare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 11:28 AM) Do your parents and grandparents refuse government controlled Medicare? Yes, because they did government controlled Medicare so well that we should use it as an example as to why we should give them control of the rest of it, too... Just...heh. Being able to refuse it for an alternative if you can afford it is a nice option to have. Having no other option, as far as I'm concerned, isn't an option at all. Medicare couldn't be run WORSE than it is, so let's not even discuss it like it's something great. Edited July 28, 2009 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 09:29 AM) Being able to refuse it for an alternative if you can afford it is a nice option to have. Having no other option, as far as I'm concerned, isn't an option at all. Medicare couldn't be run WORSE than it is, so let's not even discuss it like it's something great. Medicare could be run better (See specifically the proposal to take away Congress's power to set reimbursement rates) but it does a darn good job at what it does; keeping the elderly out of poverty. Its administrative costs are significantly lower than any private plan because they don't spend so much money finding reasons not to treat people. Its satisfaction ratings are dramatically higher than private insurance. About the only system in this country that genuinely works better is the VA system, which even Bill Kristol admits is about as good as you can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) Medicare could be run better (See specifically the proposal to take away Congress's power to set reimbursement rates) but it does a darn good job at what it does; keeping the elderly out of poverty. Its administrative costs are significantly lower than any private plan because they don't spend so much money finding reasons not to treat people. Its satisfaction ratings are dramatically higher than private insurance. About the only system in this country that genuinely works better is the VA system, which even Bill Kristol admits is about as good as you can get. The VA system sucks, as does Medicare. I have nothing more to say about this, it's an obvious waste of time. Anyone that thinks the Medicare or VA system is working needs to stop reading propaganda and go talk to some actual veterans in the system or elderly caught up in the awesomeness that is Medicare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 12:54 PM) The VA system sucks, as does Medicare. I have nothing more to say about this, it's an obvious waste of time. Anyone that thinks the Medicare or VA system is working needs to stop reading propaganda and go talk to some actual veterans in the system or elderly caught up in the awesomeness that is Medicare. Any proposed solutions other than "everything sucks"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jul 28, 2009 -> 12:54 PM) The VA system sucks, as does Medicare. I have nothing more to say about this, it's an obvious waste of time. Anyone that thinks the Medicare or VA system is working needs to stop reading propaganda and go talk to some actual veterans in the system or elderly caught up in the awesomeness that is Medicare. So, a poster presents actual evidence... you say the opposite, without any evidence, and that you will say nothing more, and that everyone else is reading propaganda. Did I miss anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts