PDA

View Full Version : WHO ranking of health care



satanica
06-29-2009, 01:19 PM
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Why is socialized medicine bad again ?

History shows us that it works.

Gingersnap
06-29-2009, 01:23 PM
Because it involves rationed health care that necessarily involves a high degree of government intrusion.

satanica
06-29-2009, 01:26 PM
Because it involves rationed health care that necessarily involves a high degree of government intrusion.

Then why do these nations rank at the top if it doesn't work ?

And why is it that our system(best in the world according to repubs) is ranked 37th ...below Saudi Arabia, Columbia, Oman, Chili, and Costa Rica ?

patriot45
06-29-2009, 01:34 PM
I bet alot has changed in 10 years blinky!


The World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems was last produced in 2000, and the WHO no longer produces such a ranking table, because of the complexity of the task.

satanica
06-29-2009, 01:38 PM
I bet alot has changed in 10 years blinky!

Please do tell.

What has taken place in the last 10 years that would make our system better ? ..no reform has taken place, we are now paying MORE than we were 10 years ago

The facts would lead one to think we have slipped in the poll.

Whats your spin ?

Rockntractor
06-29-2009, 02:19 PM
Please do tell.

What has taken place in the last 10 years that would make our system better ? ..no reform has taken place, we are now paying MORE than we were 10 years ago

The facts would lead one to think we have slipped in the poll.

Whats your spin ?

Just what we need another liberal parrot. one of you idiots is enough we have wilbur here and he makes it hard to stay awake. We don't need another.Besides wilbur has a couple of little helpers allready. You will probably last a week. i suppose you are either cw/wc or blinky .

satanica
06-29-2009, 02:43 PM
It's not me, it's the World Health Organization.

Rebel Yell
06-29-2009, 03:17 PM
It's not me, it's the World Health Organization.

I'm too lazy to check the link. Are they ranking strictly by quality, or a combination of quality and price?

Gingersnap
06-29-2009, 03:26 PM
Then why do these nations rank at the top if it doesn't work ?

And why is it that our system(best in the world according to repubs) is ranked 37th ...below Saudi Arabia, Columbia, Oman, Chili, and Costa Rica ?

What exactly are the criteria for the ranking? I notice that Sweden ranks very high but having lived there, I can tell you that Swedes are a homogeneous bunch all of whom are solidly middle class (aside from a handful of new asylum-seekers). They ride bikes everywhere and while they are notorious drunks, actual public drunken behavior is the kiss of death socially. They do not have children they didn't intend to have. Women do not live poverty there nor do they raise children in poverty.

Swedes do not get some types of health care that would be considered routine here and they are okay with that. Many pay to get life-saving procedures in other countries and they can afford it.

If you adjusted the the white U.S. population for income and education you'd get the same (or nearly the same) health benchmarks that Sweden gets. They'd do better on obesity but we'd do better on cancer survival rates.

However, when you add in a huge number of immigrants, non-white citizens who have genetically different susceptibilities to illnesses that vary from whites, uneducated people of any citizenship or racial background, teens raising children in poverty, and criminal-on-criminal violence due to the drug trade, you're dealing with populations that skew very far from the Swedish norms.

Some of the countries you cite are homogeneous, have small populations, and relatively high funding. Even so, in Saudi Arabia and Oman everyone who can afford it gets serious medical elsewhere. Chili and Costa Rica are probably not the third world hell holes you may imagine them to be and both have a universal (or near universal) system and private provider system.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-29-2009, 09:03 PM
Here is the truth folks.


The WHO report is a political report that measures many things that have absolutely nothing to do with measuring the quality of healthcare. In fact in at least one measure performing poorly is likely to mean you score higher for the ratings!!!!

One example: It measures the uniformity of distribution of healthcare services.

In other words, a country where 50% of the population has very good healthcare and the other 50% has EXCELLENT healthcare actually scores lower than a country where EVERYONE has HORRIBLE healthcare.

The over-riding factor in this criteria is that all are equal - even if it means care is equally bad.

This is 25% of the ranking.



http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/html/bp101/bp101index.html


You will have to do a LOT better than that tired old lie, Supercrash.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-29-2009, 09:09 PM
Then why do these nations rank at the top if it doesn't work ?

And why is it that our system(best in the world according to repubs) is ranked 37th ...below Saudi Arabia, Columbia, Oman, Chili, and Costa Rica ?


You unwittingly (suprise suprise suprise!) prove yourself wrong by citing countries where the leaders and anyone else who can afford to actually LEAVES these countries to get care HERE.



Care to get a bit deeper than your talking points????

Constitutionally Speaking
06-30-2009, 07:12 AM
Bumping so Supercrash can find it.

satanica
06-30-2009, 08:24 AM
You unwittingly (suprise suprise suprise!) prove yourself wrong by citing countries where the leaders and anyone else who can afford to actually LEAVES these countries to get care HERE.



Care to get a bit deeper than your talking points????

Ya, post a link that shows these leaders are leaving for treatment.

How absurd.

Answer this idiot, why does the WHO rank them so high ?

Constitutionally Speaking
06-30-2009, 12:07 PM
Answer this idiot, why does the WHO rank them so high ?



I already did. If you bothered to read my earlier post, you would know that.

It's pretty bad when equality is given more weight than overall quality.

linda22003
06-30-2009, 12:10 PM
Swedes are a homogeneous bunch all of whom are solidly middle class (aside from a handful of new asylum-seekers). They ride bikes everywhere and while they are notorious drunks, actual public drunken behavior is the kiss of death socially.


As the comedian Brett Butler said, "One side of my family is Irish, and the other side is Swedish. We're all alcoholics, but we're real quiet about it."

Gingersnap
06-30-2009, 12:36 PM
As the comedian Brett Butler said, "One side of my family is Irish, and the other side is Swedish. We're all alcoholics, but we're real quiet about it."

LOL! Pretty much. Alcohol abuse is a big deal in Sweden but you don't have the U.K. style violence or sexual exploitation and no Swede would actually miss work due to a hangover. It's a problem but it's a different kind of problem.

Constitutionally Speaking
06-30-2009, 03:42 PM
Come on Supercrash!! Explain to us how a country with 50% of it's citizens with very good health care and the other 50% with excellent health care gets penalized for unequal distribution while a country with 100% horrible care gets a higher score for this catagory???


Then TRY to explain why this category is 25% of the total score??


THEN try to justify your idiotic positition.

satanica
06-30-2009, 03:52 PM
edited for abuse

djones520
06-30-2009, 04:13 PM
Don't piss off the tough guy Bijou.

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2546/lolintvm4.jpg

Teetop
06-30-2009, 04:21 PM
edited for abuse

Self-abuse, obviously. :D

Constitutionally Speaking
07-01-2009, 05:32 AM
Hey Supercrash,

Instead of your usual juvenile behavior, why couldn't you just reasonably refute my statement??? Do facts matter to you - or are you afraid of them?

lacarnut
07-01-2009, 08:10 AM
HEY SUPER-STUPID (Eyelids/Blinky)

Instead of your usual juvenile behavior, why couldn't you just reasonably refute my statement??? Do facts matter to you - or are you afraid of them?

Edited for accuracy.

Molon Labe
07-01-2009, 09:17 AM
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Why is socialized medicine bad again ?

History shows us that it works.



This: http://blog.mises.org/archives/004710.asp

When something is "free" the commodity attempted to be consumed becomes "limitless"....thus making the government set limits.

and this: http://mises.org/story/2424

What if the free market approach to health care for the poor will be better than socialism? Isn't it about actually helping the poor?


Why not this? http://www.aapsonline.org/freemarket/berry.htm

Dr. Berry is showing the world what a free market approach would look like. Now imagine his lesson applied with the governmnet and corporate medicine completely removed.


You need a better study of history, and you really shouldn't site the WHO for your information on Health care. They are a Supranational organization not sympathetic to U.S. sovereignty and terribly politicized.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9259

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9236

noonwitch
07-01-2009, 10:03 AM
I don't see any nations with a population the size of the US ranked higher on the list. No India, China or Russia.

The problem with our health care system is not a lack of quality, it's that a significant number of people don't have coverage or access to it.

Rebel Yell
07-01-2009, 10:22 AM
I don't see any nations with a population the size of the US ranked higher on the list. No India, China or Russia.

The problem with our health care system is not a lack of quality, it's that a significant number of people don't have coverage or access to it.

Tort reform would make alot easier to afford without "coverage", though. But we can't focus on that, because the lawyers outnumber the doctors in the government.

lacarnut
07-01-2009, 10:22 AM
The problem with our health care system is not a lack of quality, it's that a significant number of people don't have coverage or access to it.

10 million out of the 40 million uninsured have the means to pay for health insurance; they are young and choose not to. Why should the government force them to do so if they want to roll the dice?

EVERYONE in this country is entitled to critical care. A gangbanger that gets shot or stabbed will be treated in the emergency room. So this bullshit about 47 million not having health care is a crock of crap. If you are poor and do not have insurance, you can go to a charity hospital in this state for any illness. Unlike countries like Canada and the UK, you do not have to wait days, weeks, months, years to get treated or worse yet die out in the ER hall.

Molon Labe
07-01-2009, 10:44 AM
I don't see any nations with a population the size of the US ranked higher on the list. No India, China or Russia.

The problem with our health care system is not a lack of quality, it's that a significant number of people don't have coverage or access to it.

I think the problem with our health care system has nothing to do with access because everyone get's seen, but not everyone gets the choice for procedures because of costs.

It has to do with runaway costs and the government allowing pharm and insurance to gain a monopoly on the freemarket. See the Dr. Berrry story I posted above. It's a free market approach and it shows the glaring problems in our HMO system. http://www.aapsonline.org/freemarket/berry.htm

NJCardFan
07-01-2009, 11:51 AM
This is how these libs work. They take a report from a highly ideological entity like the WHO and eat it up hook, line, and sinker. Then when hit with actual facts that refute the study, they fold up like a cheap tent. Constitutionally Speaking completely owns this thread and Super Idiot can't take it and since they have zero capability of an honest debate, they take their ball and go home.

CS, you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned people from those countries leaving their home country and getting care elsewhere. Hell, how many stories have we heard about people coming here from those countries? Of course facts are like kryptonite to liberals.

Constitutionally Speaking
07-01-2009, 12:47 PM
The answer for the VAST majority of Americans is to give THEM control over their OWN healthcare. Instead of fitting us into prefabricated once size fits all employer paid OR government paid system, why not take this benefit in the form of CASH to be used to purchase the health plan of your OWN CHOICE. One completely customized to YOUR needs, wants and desires.

This would put the actual end user of health services BACK in their role of comparative shopper.


For those who are not employed we can LOOK at charitable options for health services.

Speedy
07-01-2009, 01:01 PM
10 million out of the 40 million uninsured have the means to pay for health insurance; they are young and choose not to. Why should the government force them to do so if they want to roll the dice?

EVERYONE in this country is entitled to critical care. A gangbanger that gets shot or stabbed will be treated in the emergency room. So this bullshit about 47 million not having health care is a crock of crap. If you are poor and do not have insurance, you can go to a charity hospital in this state for any illness. Unlike countries like Canada and the UK, you do not have to wait days, weeks, months, years to get treated or worse yet die out in the ER hall.

Since January first I have been to the doctor about 8 times. I have had a couple of MRIs and CAT scans and my meds run about $420 a month. I have been in the hospital twice and had 1 biopsy.

I think I may have paid $300 out of pocket. I have not worked since Yvette and I seperated. I have no insurance at all and am scratching out a living out of a couple of rental properties my father left me when he died a couple of years ago.

I get better healthcare now than I would under any system Obama would come up with. My Dr. and hospital bills are being taken care of by a local program that asks only that I contribute SOMETHING if I have a source of income. My meds are taken care of by a local Misterial Alliance.

noonwitch
07-01-2009, 01:24 PM
10 million out of the 40 million uninsured have the means to pay for health insurance; they are young and choose not to. Why should the government force them to do so if they want to roll the dice?

EVERYONE in this country is entitled to critical care. A gangbanger that gets shot or stabbed will be treated in the emergency room. So this bullshit about 47 million not having health care is a crock of crap. If you are poor and do not have insurance, you can go to a charity hospital in this state for any illness. Unlike countries like Canada and the UK, you do not have to wait days, weeks, months, years to get treated or worse yet die out in the ER hall.



I don't think we should be forcing people to have health care coverage. That's just wrong.

I agree with conservatives that a government-run program will not work. Medicare might work, and my dad has some great VA benefits, but Medicaid is a good example of how bad government health care can be. In some states, it's also a good lesson in how government-run programs that purchase services out to the lowest bidder are not very good, either.

Elimiting frivolous lawsuits and limiting damages on other suits would be a good start to health care reform, as someone else pointed out. Creating more jobs in the private sector would also help.

This is a lawsuit happy nation. Your baby has cerebral palsy, call Lee Free and get the hospital to pay you. Not all CP is caused by malpractice, but those ads imply that it is. I've been advised twice to sue people-once, I fell off a foster parents' porch and injured my knees. The other time was when a tree fell on my house from the neighbor's yard, a neighbor who happened to be a nun! There are just two classes of people you don't even think about suing-foster parents who care for severely handicapped children and
nuns!

Speedy
07-01-2009, 01:32 PM
Mexico has a private healthcare system much like here. Their General Practicioner Clinics are pretty good, their private hospitals suck. One aspect I do like is their Seguro Social. Every company over a certain number of employees has to put their employees in the system. The employee pays so much to be in it out of his paycheck, the employer pays so much and the government kicks in so much.

This money goes into funding clinics and hospitals. Only those that pay into it can use it. The hospitals are modern, the doctors top notch. But like I said, only those that pay into it can use it. I can go for something like that.