Destroying Healthcare in America

[Micael]

Originally Posted by daThomas

The statement, "damn profiteers in healthcare. I hate em! Next time you see a nurse, just slap her silly!" implies that the nurse is a profiteer and should be slapped.

Uh...

[daThomas]

Originally Posted by Micael

I haven't refused, I've stated I didn't want to get in a statistics shooting match. You can make numbers say just about anything you want. Numbers can't lie, but those presenting them can misconstrue their meaning. Kind of like the whole global warming lie, but I digress...

Showing we have room to improve (from 6.xx to 2.xx per 1000) on infant mortality does not, to me, indicate a failure of our system over others.

That's a cop out.

Infant mortality is one accepted standardized measure of healthcare, and it shows the U.S. behind all of the countries you are stating have a lesser quality of healthcare.

Now what other metric would you like to determine whether that may or may not be accurate?

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by Micael

Ok, if you're going to quote stats please give reference.

Sure: Public Favors Obama's Health-Care Plan - ABC News

Now can you offer a shred of data to support your position regarding why our system is superior to those other countries with a public option? You've discounted citizen surveys, and believe that infant mortality isn't valid, then what is a valid measure of health care quality? "Degree of American-ness?"

[anthillmob]

Originally Posted by Bujin

Sure:

Now can you offer a shred of data to support your position regarding why our system is superior to those other countries with a public option? You've discounted citizen surveys, and believe that infant mortality isn't valid, then what is a valid measure of health care quality? "Degree of American-ness?"

Like Micael, I really don't want to be drawn into a "my statistics are better than your statistics" kind of argument. However, there is plenty of data suggesting care here is better than, for example, Europe. See the The Lancet Oncology Vol. 8, Iss. 9, Sept 2007 in which results of the Eurocare-4 study into cancer survival rates are given. A summary of this is available here w w w dot medscape dot com/viewarticle/561737 (insufficient posts..... sorry!)
In short, they report that differences in cancer survival rates amount European countries is narrowing, but that Europe still lags significantly behind the US. Now, I can't give you statistics on the number of people who get cancer..... but I would bet good money it is more than the 1-2 in 1000 that is the difference in infant mortality!

Additionally, I will note there are plenty of reasons for the differences in infant mortality rates that have nothing to do with the level of health care..... i.e. a single number does not give the reason for the difference.

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by Bujin

Sure: Public Favors Obama's Health-Care Plan - ABC News

Now can you offer a shred of data to support your position regarding why our system is superior to those other countries with a public option? You've discounted citizen surveys, and believe that infant mortality isn't valid, then what is a valid measure of health care quality? "Degree of American-ness?"

Originally Posted by anthillmob

Like Micael, I really don't want to be drawn into a "my statistics are better than your statistics" kind of argument. However, there is plenty of data suggesting care here is better than, for example, Europe. See the The Lancet Oncology Vol. 8, Iss. 9, Sept 2007 in which results of the Eurocare-4 study into cancer survival rates are given. A summary of this is available here w w w dot medscape dot com/viewarticle/561737 (insufficient posts..... sorry!)
In short, they report that differences in cancer survival rates amount European countries is narrowing, but that Europe still lags significantly behind the US. Now, I can't give you statistics on the number of people who get cancer..... but I would bet good money it is more than the 1-2 in 1000 that is the difference in infant mortality!

Additionally, I will note there are plenty of reasons for the differences in infant mortality rates that have nothing to do with the level of health care..... i.e. a single number does not give the reason for the difference.

Thanks - I'll take a look at it!

Quite frankly, my position is simply that positions should be based upon dara, rather than political ideology. I fully believe there are measures in which we are superior to some other countries, but I simply can't buy the knee-jerk arguments that a public option isn't viable, when it has been implemented in other countries in a way that the citizenry is satisfied with.

[daThomas]

Originally Posted by anthillmob

Like Micael, I really don't want to be drawn into a "my statistics are better than your statistics" kind of argument. However, there is plenty of data suggesting care here is better than, for example, Europe. See the The Lancet Oncology Vol. 8, Iss. 9, Sept 2007 in which results of the Eurocare-4 study into cancer survival rates are given. A summary of this is available here w w w dot medscape dot com/viewarticle/561737 (insufficient posts..... sorry!)
In short, they report that differences in cancer survival rates amount European countries is narrowing, but that Europe still lags significantly behind the US. Now, I can't give you statistics on the number of people who get cancer..... but I would bet good money it is more than the 1-2 in 1000 that is the difference in infant mortality!

Additionally, I will note there are plenty of reasons for the differences in infant mortality rates that have nothing to do with the level of health care..... i.e. a single number does not give the reason for the difference.

Do you have a metric for OVERALL healthcare efficacy? That's the point being debated.

[groovy]

Originally Posted by daThomas

Seriously. The rest of the industrialized world has gov't run healthcare. It's time to wake up and take the profit out of the human condition that is getting sick.

Yes, because we all know that clinicians, administrators and other healthcare workers are all saints who work out of the goodness of their hearts and don't care how much or little they get paid.

[groovy]

Originally Posted by daThomas

The numbers don't lie.

But the people supplying the numbers often do. Case in point: Cuba.

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by groovy

But the people supplying the numbers often do. Case in point: Cuba.

So the UN and CIA's numbers are incorrect regarding Cuba? What led you to that conclusion?

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by groovy

Yes, because we all know that clinicians, administrators and other healthcare workers are all saints who work out of the goodness of their hearts and don't care how much or little they get paid.

Snarky comments aside - there's no evidence that for-profit has led to a better, more efficient, or more effective system.

[groovy]

Originally Posted by Bujin

Snarky comments aside, other countries are doing it better than us. There's no evidence that for-profit has led to a better system.

"Doing it better" is kind of vague. Could you elaborate? I mean, "better" health care isn't just the amount of people with coverage, it's the type of coverage, the quality and timeliness of treatment, the access to innovations in technique, equipment and therapy as well as preventative health care programs.

Also, rating health care as "better" must take into consideration the percentage of high-risk populations as compared to the whole and it must consider the ability of the system to track those populations. I submit that the US has done much better at tracking high-risk populations than other countries and, as such, it's numbers fall below those of other countries without such tracking abilities.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Bujin

Snarky comments aside - there's no evidence that for-profit has led to a better, more efficient, or more effective system.

There's no evidence because the US is not in fact a pure for-profit healthcare system. If it were, emergency services regardless of ability to pay would not exist. There would be no medicaid or medicare system. There would be no such thing as a free clinic. Perhaps the snarkiness originates because one is either ignorant or trying to advance an agenda to cast it as a purely for-profit system.

[Bujin]

"Doing it better" is kind of vague. Could you elaborate? I mean, "better" health care isn't just the amount of people with coverage, it's the type of coverage, the quality and timeliness of treatment, the access to innovations in technique, equipment and therapy as well as preventative health care programs.

I'm basing "doing it better" on the stats from the UN and CIA Factbook, as posted on the prior page, the satisfaction level of the countries' citizens, as also posted previously, and the cost of health care.

Originally Posted by groovy

I submit that the US has done much better at tracking high-risk populations than other countries and, as such, it's numbers fall below those of other countries without such tracking abilities.

Do you have any evidence to back up that hypothesis...or just drawing the conclusion that, because the UN and CIA numbers indicate that we're not the best, the numbers can't be trusted?

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by Toby

There's no evidence because the US is not in fact a pure for-profit healthcare system. If it were, emergency services regardless of ability to pay would not exist. There would be no medicaid or medicare system. There would be no such thing as a free clinic. Perhaps the snarkiness originates because one is either ignorant or trying to advance an agenda to cast it as a purely for-profit system.

The system has a for-profit structure, with those elements you cite as exceptions. I'm perfectly content to state that it's not purely for-profit, if it makes you feel better. However, I don't think the issue of "purely" vs. "mostly" for-profit has been a real bone of contention in this thread.

The point is that other countries have made a public option work, and that (despite political rhetoric that states other countries have far worse health systems than ours) the data shows that our system is far less functional than numerous others.

You can call that ignorant if it makes you feel better, but the data clearly doesn't support the statements that public options will "destroy health care".

[groovy]

Originally Posted by Bujin

So the UN and CIA's numbers are incorrect regarding Cuba? What led you to that conclusion?

Those organizations report what the local health ministries tell them to report. Also, the method of recording infant mortality is not standardized and the care for at risk infants varies widely. For example, hospitals in the US take extensive measures to save newborns with a very low birth-weight or who are otherwise at risk. This means a very low birth-weight baby who is born in the US will undergo several procedures to attempt to save that babies life (procedures they might not get in other countries, such as Cuba). However, if that baby dies, it will be recorded as a live birth and then a death. In Cuba, this same baby would likely be recorded as a fetal death and would not be included in infant mortality statistics.

All of these issues make for very unreliable statistics.

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by groovy

All of these issues make for very unreliable statistics.

Do you believe that argument for all of those other countries as well? And the fact that we rank 29th in life expectancy? Are there any objective measures in which we outperform other countries (other than cost)?

[groovy]

Originally Posted by Bujin

I'm basing "doing it better" on the stats from the UN and CIA Factbook, as posted on the prior page, the satisfaction level of the countries' citizens, as also posted previously, and the cost of health care.

See my previous post.

Do you have any evidence to back up that hypothesis...or just drawing the conclusion that, because the UN and CIA numbers indicate that we're not the best, the numbers can't be trusted?

"First, it's shaky ground to compare U.S. infant mortality with reports from other countries. The United States counts all births as live if they show any sign of life, regardless of prematurity or size. This includes what many other countries report as stillbirths. In Austria and Germany, fetal weight must be at least 500 grams (1 pound) to count as a live birth; in other parts of Europe, such as Switzerland, the fetus must be at least 30 centimeters (12 inches) long. In Belgium and France, births at less than 26 weeks of pregnancy are registered as lifeless. And some countries don't reliably register babies who die within the first 24 hours of birth. Thus, the United States is sure to report higher infant mortality rates. For this very reason, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which collects the European numbers, warns of head-to-head comparisons by country."

Bernadine Healy, M.D.: Behind the baby count - US News and World Report

Now, one would assume that if my previous assertion is correct, the United States would have significantly lower perinatal mortality and stillborn rates than Cuba. It does.

[Bujin]

So our standard should be that we're better than Cuba? Really?

Should our life expectancy be below 28 other countries? Should medical costs be causing the level of foreclosures that is currently is, or should we be virtually the only wealthy industrial country that doesn't insure all of its citizens?

The Cuba argument really doesn't make the case that our health care system isn't broken.

[groovy]

Originally Posted by Bujin

Do you believe that argument for all of those other countries as well? And the fact that we rank 29th in life expectancy? Are there any objective measures in which we outperform other countries (other than cost)?

I believe that argument for many of those countries. I do believe mortality rates in Scandinavian countries are lower than the US but for many and varied reasons. Scandinavian countries are largely homogeneous countries with lower populations living "off the grid". People in those countries also tend to have much a better diet than much of the US. They also tend to have lower overall birthrates which, for a number of reasons, leads to lower infant mortality rates.

[groovy]

Originally Posted by Bujin

So our standard should be that we're better than Cuba? Really?

Should our life expectancy be below 28 other countries? Should medical costs be causing the level of foreclosures that is currently is, or should we be virtually the only wealthy industrial country that doesn't insure all of its citizens?

The Cuba argument really doesn't make the case that our health care system isn't broken.

Cuba is just an example of how the number can be skewed. But, I must have missed the post that correlated the numbers of foreclosures to health care costs.