PDA

View Full Version : I Thought Healthcare Was Awful In This Country?



NJCardFan
11-17-2011, 07:49 PM
CBS news is right now running a segment on that Americans are living longer and that we are living longer because of healthcare. So which is it libs? Are people dying in the streets or are we really living longer?

Wei Wu Wei
11-17-2011, 08:16 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Wei Wu Wei
11-17-2011, 08:33 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

Ranked by life expectancy, the US of A is 36th in the world.

Can anyone here guess what the 35 countries ahead of us all have in common?



Also, the World Health Organization ranks us at 37th in the world in terms of health care systems, again, can anyone guess what the nations ahead of us have in common?

Rockntractor
11-17-2011, 08:34 PM
Ranked by life expectancy, the US of A is 36th in the world.

Can anyone here guess what the 35 countries ahead of us all have in common?



Also, the World Health Organization ranks us at 37th in the world in terms of health care systems, again, can anyone guess what the nations ahead of us have in common?

Most of them don't record infant death like we do.

Rockntractor
11-17-2011, 08:40 PM
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004393.html

Wei Wu Wei
11-17-2011, 08:41 PM
Most of them don't record infant death like we do.

I think you are thinking of Infant Mortality rates, not life expectancy.

Rockntractor
11-17-2011, 08:51 PM
I think you are thinking of Infant Mortality rates, not life expectancy.

Many of these countries don't make out a death certificate for a deceased infant so they don't get included in the stats, we do. Also we lose more in car accidents because we are spread out and people drive to work. You should look at the stats for how many people actually own a car in other countries and how many miles they drive per year, per person.

Bailey
11-17-2011, 08:55 PM
Many of these countries don't make out a death certificate for a deceased infant so they don't get included in the stats, we do. Also we lose more in car accidents because we are spread out and people drive to work. You should look at the stats for how many people actually own a car in other countries and how many miles they drive per year, per person.

That's going to leave a mark on wewe

Constitutionally Speaking
11-17-2011, 08:57 PM
Ranked by life expectancy, the US of A is 36th in the world.

Can anyone here guess what the 35 countries ahead of us all have in common?



Also, the World Health Organization ranks us at 37th in the world in terms of health care systems, again, can anyone guess what the nations ahead of us have in common?

Lower murder rates, not full accounting of infant deaths and several other non healthcare related reasons.

Rockntractor
11-17-2011, 08:59 PM
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2011/04/13/financial-times-gets-wrong-infant-mortality-rates/

Rockntractor
11-17-2011, 09:01 PM
Automobiles per capita
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/tra_mot_veh-transportation-motor-vehicles

Bailey
11-17-2011, 09:01 PM
Lower murder rates, not full accounting of infant deaths and several other non healthcare related reasons.

If we ranked so low why do people from other countries come here for care.? I'll bet you a sawback Chavez would've come here if he couldve kept it quite.

Wei Wu Wei
11-17-2011, 09:06 PM
Many of these countries don't make out a death certificate for a deceased infant so they don't get included in the stats, we do. Also we lose more in car accidents because we are spread out and people drive to work. You should look at the stats for how many people actually own a car in other countries and how many miles they drive per year, per person.

Right, I remember hearing this before too, and I looked it up:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db23.htm


Differences in the reporting of live births between countries can have an impact on international comparisons of infant mortality.


In the United States and in 14 of 19 European countries, all live births at any birthweight or gestational age are required to be reported. Also, since no live births occur before 12 weeks of gestation, the requirement for Norway that all live births at 12 weeks of gestation or more be reported is substantially the same as for countries where all live births are required to be reported.


So the US does report all live births as such, while many other countries do not count all live births in certain circumstances, which does result in the US having a higher infant mortality rate than countries with different standards.



The U.S. infant mortality rate was still higher than for most European countries when births at less than 22 weeks of gestation were excluded.


When births at less than 22 weeks were excluded, the U.S. infant mortality rate dropped from 6.8 to 5.8 infant deaths per 1,000 live births in 2004 (2).[/quote

So while this does affect the statistics, it does not affect them that much. If we exclude premature births from the statistics (as other countries often do), then the infant mortality rate in the US drops significantly, but is still significantly higher than most European nations.


However, when it comes to premature infants, the US comes out better than most:

[quote]
The infant mortality rate for infants born at 24-27 weeks of gestation was lower in the United States than in most European countries (except Norway and Sweden) seven countries had higher rates. For infants born at 28-31 weeks of gestation, the U.S. rate was lower than for all countries shown except Austria, Denmark, and Sweden. For infants born at 32-36 weeks of gestation, the U.S. infant mortality rate was lower than for all countries shown except Austria and Norway. However, for infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more, the United States’ infant mortality rate was highest among the countries studied.

So the US has a lower mortality rate for pre-term infants (which some nations don't even count at all), but for babies born at term, the US has a significantly higher mortality rate.



Another interesting difference, however, is the rate at which pre-term babies are born:



In 2004, when births at less than 22 weeks of gestation were excluded, 12.4% of U.S. births were preterm, compared with 5.5% in Ireland, 6.3% in Sweden and France, and 7.4% in England and Wales. In the United States, 1 out of every 8 births were born preterm, whereas in Ireland and Finland only 1 out of 18 births were born preterm.

The US has a far higher rate of pre-term babies being born, and given the higher mortality rate of pre-term babies (in all countries), this brings the US down in infant mortality rankings.


So, according to the CDC, while the differences in data collection don't account for the America's poor ranking in terms of infant mortality, the differences in the rate of pre-term babies does account for it.



In 2005, the United States ranked 30th in the world in infant mortality, behind most European countries, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and Israel. There are some differences among countries in the reporting of very small infants who may die soon after birth. However, it appears unlikely that differences in reporting are the primary explanation for the United States’ relatively low international ranking.

...


The primary reason for the United States’ higher infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the United States’ much higher percentage of preterm births. In 2004, 1 in 8 infants born in the United States were born preterm, compared with 1 in 18 in Ireland and Finland. Preterm infants have much higher rates of death or disability than infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more (2-4, 6), so the United States’ higher percentage of preterm births has a large effect on infant mortality rates. If the United States had the same gestational age distribution of births as Sweden, the U.S. infant mortality rate (excluding births at less than 22 weeks of gestation) would go from 5.8 to 3.9 infant deaths per 1,000 live births, a 33% decline.


So according t the CDC, the main problem with infant mortality in the US is pre-term birthrates themselves.

Rockntractor
11-17-2011, 09:07 PM
miles driven
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar4.htm

Wei Wu Wei
11-17-2011, 09:12 PM
If we ranked so low why do people from other countries come here for care.? I'll bet you a sawback Chavez would've come here if he couldve kept it quite.

This is not very complex. We have an excellent and expensive health care system for people who are able to afford it, however, for people who can't afford it, it's not so great. It's our lack of universal care and high prices that gives us a low ranking. RIch people who travel to the US for high-priced healthcare are going to get a very different healthcare experience than unemployed citizens.

The WHO ranking isn't looking at how good the healthcare system is for a millionaire, it's looking at how good it is overall.

That's like comparing the entire education system to a select few private schools.


Think about Soviet Russia. If you were in a small town and you didn't have any connections, you might go to a shitty filthy hospital without running water. However, if you had connections in the Party and had the right job, you could get some of the best healthcare in the world.

Wei Wu Wei
11-17-2011, 09:14 PM
miles driven
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar4.htm

It could be argued that shorter and more densely trafficked commutes are more dangerous than longer, more sparsely trafficked commutes.

Novaheart
11-17-2011, 10:12 PM
I Thought Healthcare Was Awful In This Country?

Who said it was awful?

On that subject, however, I will tell you that when I was in PPU in that last hospitalization, I had a nice glass room in a well maintained unit. When I got better, they transferred my to what I call the Prison Ward where conditions were much different... and what you might expect to see in an Eastern European country.

Anyway, I never said that healthcare was awful, I said that our patchwork system is expensive and works against those who are who would like to be self employed and in small business.

Novaheart
11-17-2011, 10:14 PM
Most of them don't record infant death like we do.

Methodology is always important, both in the subject and the study. It's like comparing the murder rate, suicide rate, "gun death" rate etc.... across national borders. Apparently, much of the world doesn't record suicides due to the shame factor. Funny that being a martyr for an angry desert god is noble, but committing suicide is considered a shame.

Novaheart
11-17-2011, 10:15 PM
Many of these countries don't make out a death certificate for a deceased infant so they don't get included in the stats, we do. Also we lose more in car accidents because we are spread out and people drive to work. You should look at the stats for how many people actually own a car in other countries and how many miles they drive per year, per person.

Shouldn't we have gotten healthier with the death of the public pay phone?

MrsSmith
11-17-2011, 10:20 PM
Shouldn't we have gotten healthier with the death of the public pay phone?No, when we used payphones to make calls, we had to stop. Now people drive while dialing, looking through their contacts, texting...

MrsSmith
11-17-2011, 10:30 PM
This is not very complex. We have an excellent and expensive health care system for people who are able to afford it, however, for people who can't afford it, it's not so great. It's our lack of universal care and high prices that gives us a low ranking. RIch people who travel to the US for high-priced healthcare are going to get a very different healthcare experience than unemployed citizens.

The WHO ranking isn't looking at how good the healthcare system is for a millionaire, it's looking at how good it is overall.

That's like comparing the entire education system to a select few private schools.


Think about Soviet Russia. If you were in a small town and you didn't have any connections, you might go to a shitty filthy hospital without running water. However, if you had connections in the Party and had the right job, you could get some of the best healthcare in the world.

Hospitals are not perfect, but you're unlikely to find any US hospitals that are "shitty filthy." US healthcare isn't perfect, but it's better than any of the "free" healthcare. The government is working hard to write enough regulations to make it worse than the "free" stuff, but they haven't managed it yet.

Strangely enough, the patients most likely to get lousy treatment are those on government "insurance,' like Medicare and Medicaid. This is because the government reimburses only 65% of the cost of the treatments. Self-pay and insured people both frequently get better treatment.

As more and more people end up on government "insurance," our healthcare system will become as poor as other countries, with many smaller clinics and hospitals being forced out of business, and those remaining open becoming more and more overcrowded and having to use cheaper labor and fewer trained personnel. Eventually, we may actually end up with "shitty filthy" places as hospitals struggle to treat more and more people on less and less money.

Rockntractor
11-17-2011, 10:42 PM
works against those who are who would like to be self employed and in small business.

I can't argue with that statement.
Something needs to give in the insurance industry. I am apposed to any government system.

Novaheart
11-17-2011, 10:44 PM
Right, I remember hearing this before too, and I looked it up:

I'm sure you know that I support universal healthcare. However, I don't think we need to prove a need for it by comparing life expectancy or infant mortality with other countries. While this might be changing somewhat, there are huge players who either don't report, or who can't be trusted in what they report.

Moreover, the US is somewhat unique in that we have large populations which are not native to this country or culture even if some or most of them were born here. We have 12 million or so illegal aliens in this country. That's almost 5% of our population. We have a huge African and Afro-Caribbean immigrant and minority population- a group of people who have racial dynamics pertaining to births, ie shorter gestation periods which skew our numbers. Do these countries you are comparing us to have the ethnic diversity that we do?

It takes a while for immigrant populations to catch up. Some minority populations generate their own discrepancies through diet, living conditions, violence. I feel certain that if you compared an ethnically homogenous WASPy area the size of the Switzerland to Switzerland, there wouldn't be a huge difference in the stats.

noonwitch
11-18-2011, 10:05 AM
Hospitals are not perfect, but you're unlikely to find any US hospitals that are "shitty filthy." US healthcare isn't perfect, but it's better than any of the "free" healthcare. The government is working hard to write enough regulations to make it worse than the "free" stuff, but they haven't managed it yet.

Strangely enough, the patients most likely to get lousy treatment are those on government "insurance,' like Medicare and Medicaid. This is because the government reimburses only 65% of the cost of the treatments. Self-pay and insured people both frequently get better treatment.

As more and more people end up on government "insurance," our healthcare system will become as poor as other countries, with many smaller clinics and hospitals being forced out of business, and those remaining open becoming more and more overcrowded and having to use cheaper labor and fewer trained personnel. Eventually, we may actually end up with "shitty filthy" places as hospitals struggle to treat more and more people on less and less money.


The Detroit Medical Center, located in downtown, is a very decent place. They were on the verge of bankruptcy a few years back, but they are back on track and expanding. We keep telling the kids we work with that medical technology and nursing are good fields for future employment.

But even Detroit Receiving Hospital, which is the emergency hospital for the city, is a clean and good place. They deal with filthy junkies, along with gunshot victims, people having heart attacks at work in downtown offices and every other thing a big-city ER deals with.

Starbuck
11-18-2011, 10:47 AM
Ranked by life expectancy, the US of A is 36th in the world.

Can anyone here guess what the 35 countries ahead of us all have in common...........

They have little or no black population.

AmPat
11-18-2011, 10:56 AM
Ranked by life expectancy, the US of A is 36th in the world.

Can anyone here guess what the 35 countries ahead of us all have in common?



Also, the World Health Organization ranks us at 37th in the world in terms of health care systems, again, can anyone guess what the nations ahead of us have in common?

A quality of life that restricts their intake of massive amounts of food that is bad for them and cultures that eat healthier foods. Facts suck to liberals don't they?

Novaheart
11-19-2011, 01:27 AM
Ranked by life expectancy, the US of A is 36th in the world.

Can anyone here guess what the 35 countries ahead of us all have in common?



Also, the World Health Organization ranks us at 37th in the world in terms of health care systems, again, can anyone guess what the nations ahead of us have in common?

Japan and Chinese Hong Kong are #1 and #2. Neither of these states has Single Payer healthcare, and China does not (to my surprise) have universal healthcare.

Just the other day I was reading about the plight of some Chinese kidney patients, who because they could not afford Chinese health insurance or dialysis at a commercial center, they bought some used machines from a private hospital and started a dialysis collective. The press got wind of it, the government got wind of it and shut it down because it made the country's healthcare system look bad. In a rather Republican fashion, they gave the patients one year of free dialysis while they "save up for treatment".

"I'll be dead within two years." said one of the co-op owners.

AmPat
11-19-2011, 11:14 AM
Japan and Chinese Hong Kong are #1 and #2. Neither of these states has Single Payer healthcare, and China does not (to my surprise) have universal healthcare.

Just the other day I was reading about the plight of some Chinese kidney patients, who because they could not afford Chinese health insurance or dialysis at a commercial center, they bought some used machines from a private hospital and started a dialysis collective. The press got wind of it, the government got wind of it and shut it down because it made the country's healthcare system look bad. In a rather Republican fashion, they gave the patients one year of free dialysis while they "save up for treatment".

"I'll be dead within two years." said one of the co-op owners.

Who paid for the "free" dialysis?:rolleyes:

Novaheart
11-20-2011, 02:46 AM
Who paid for the "free" dialysis?:rolleyes:

The "Republican fashion" referred to was the notion that people who can't afford health insurance can somehow "save up" for actual health care. Don't roll your eyes like that, it makes you look stupid

AmPat
11-20-2011, 10:49 AM
The "Republican fashion" referred to was the notion that people who can't afford health insurance can somehow "save up" for actual health care. Don't roll your eyes like that, it makes you look stupid

I can't help it, If I stare at you I'll puke. Staring at stupid too long makes me sick.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Starbuck
11-20-2011, 12:12 PM
The "Republican fashion" referred to was the notion that people who can't afford health insurance can somehow "save up" for actual health care. Don't roll your eyes like that, it makes you look stupid
That actually wasn't the thought process at all. Signed into law by Bush in 2003, the thought was that people would buy high deductible policies and save money to fill the gap.

Didn't work.

Most hourly wage type people (yes, I believe that is a 'type') won't save money, no matter what the reason.

And we 'rich' people have enough money saved up so that it doesn't matter what the deductible is.

"We, The People", are ruined, I think. Everyone 'knows' that they can't afford their own health care insurance, even though they have no idea what it would cost. And besides, if you go to the hospital they won't turn you down.

The teeter-totter has tipped. And the people on the ground have no ability to climb up. So they will just wait.:(

Novaheart
11-21-2011, 04:11 PM
That actually wasn't the thought process at all. Signed into law by Bush in 2003, the thought was that people would buy high deductible policies and save money to fill the gap.

Didn't work.

Most hourly wage type people (yes, I believe that is a 'type') won't save money, no matter what the reason.

If you make $7-$10 per hour, and you're spending $200/mo on a high deductible policy in addition to your living expenses, what money are you expected to save up and donate to Rick Scott's wallet?

malloc
11-24-2011, 04:09 AM
Japan and Chinese Hong Kong are #1 and #2. Neither of these states has Single Payer healthcare, and China does not (to my surprise) have universal healthcare.

Just the other day I was reading about the plight of some Chinese kidney patients, who because they could not afford Chinese health insurance or dialysis at a commercial center, they bought some used machines from a private hospital and started a dialysis collective. The press got wind of it, the government got wind of it and shut it down because it made the country's healthcare system look bad. In a rather Republican fashion, they gave the patients one year of free dialysis while they "save up for treatment".

"I'll be dead within two years." said one of the co-op owners.

China, outside of the densely populated area doesn't have a system at all. Also, the Chinese numbers are certainly not to be trusted. China is vast and lot of it is rural. The Party doesn't even have an accurate count of it subjects, peasants and nobles in the outlying areas, much less does it care about a little thing like the death rate of those who support the lavish lifestyles of the comrades who have The Party's favor. Then there's The Party manipulation and censorship of every single piece of data that comes out of China.

Starbuck
11-24-2011, 08:53 AM
If you make $7-$10 per hour, and you're spending $200/mo on a high deductible policy in addition to your living expenses, what money are you expected to save up and donate to Rick Scott's wallet?

None, of course.
If you make 400/week (the top of the scale you conveniently chose) you're not going to be able to save any money and you won't hear anything from me about it either.

On the other hand if you are part of the 50,000/year crowd, and don't save money you will get no sympathy from me.

There are lots of people who make 50K and 'can't save and 'can't afford. I used to work with many of them and I used to work with just as many who made the same amount and happily lived within their means. It's all in your head, but the worker has to find a way to get himself above the poverty level first.

Sort of reminds me of all those worker who whine, "How am I gonna support a family of four on my minimum wage? Now you tell me that?!" Nonsensical question from a clueless someone.

MrsSmith
11-25-2011, 09:57 PM
If you make $7-$10 per hour, and you're spending $200/mo on a high deductible policy in addition to your living expenses, what money are you expected to save up and donate to Rick Scott's wallet?

If you make $7-10 per hour, you don't buy insurance. You just pay the doctor when you need to be seen, and make payments to the ER when you end up there. Of course, you try hard not to end up there because it costs way more than a doctor visit. Now that we have Urgent or After Hours Care in so many places, that's where you go.

I didn't have health insurance for many years when my kids were young, but was lucky enough to have a doctor that would let me pay on my next payday. I would roll coins for prescriptions to get by. My kids never did without any necessary medical treatment.

After I got insurance, ironically enough, my health care costs went up because the insurance didn't cover anything until the deductible was met, so I still paid for the doctor on my next payday and rolled coins for prescriptions.

And, BTW, a $1200 deductible policy for a family today runs about $850 actual cost, not $200.

TraceeJ
03-16-2012, 01:12 PM
I think if we practiced more preventive medicine and led more active and healthier lives, we could live even longer. There are a lot of variables that go into life expectancy including pollution and daily risks. Our cars are safer and our work places are also safer which reduces major injuries or death which increases the life expectancy. I've got a temporary health plan right now that covers any major illnesses or hospitalization. I'd like to find a job with a company with a great group plan but right now I'm good with the short term plan as I am in good overall health.

NJCardFan
03-16-2012, 10:39 PM
http://www.strat-talk.com/forum/attachments/stratocaster-discussion-forum/20786d1304452679-questions-about-1991-usa-strat-necrothread.jpg