Destroying Healthcare in America

[groovy]

Originally Posted by Bujin

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

By the way, that's a case of changing the argument midstream. I wasn't arguing that our health care system isn't broken. I was arguing your assertion that other countries do health care "better".

[Micael]

Originally Posted by daThomas

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?

Where did I say all of the countries have a lesser quality of healthcare?

[Micael]

Originally Posted by daThomas

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

No, thats the point you keep hammering on.

[Micael]

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?"

Bujin, I didn't say things like that. And I don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth. Go build a losing argument for someone else. I'm tired of your game.

[Micael]

Originally Posted by groovy

By the way, that's a case of changing the argument midstream. I wasn't arguing that our health care system isn't broken. I was arguing your assertion that other countries do health care "better".

That's bujin's and daThomas's tactic. If you don't like someones argument, change it to something you like better. They seem to be on the "rating the US healthcare against the rest of the world" bend atm. Thats another thread guys. Go start one, ok?

[Bujin]

Originally Posted by Micael

That's bujin's and daThomas's tactic. If you don't like someones argument, change it to something you like better. They seem to be on the "rating the US healthcare against the rest of the world" bend atm. Thats another thread guys. Go start one, ok?

You made the case that we needed to "learn from other country's mistakes", and "we all know how well the rest of the industrialized world's healthcare systems run. Not."

You make these broad generalizations, with no data that our system outperforms other countries. In fact, cost / mortality / life expectancy strongly indicate otherwise.

So, I'm sorry if you don't like my points, but I didn't change in the argument at all....I simply called you on the fact that you make broad conclusions with no support. Since data obviously doesn't matter much to you when it conflicts with your "common sense" (in other words, when it conflicts with your preconceived ideology), I can see why you're not convinced.

I'm also sorry if you don't feel that I'm welcome on this thread. I guess I didn't realize that this thread was only for your ill-conceived, fact-less conclusions. I humbly apologize.

I will, however, leave you with a parting gift, courtesy of the World Health Org: http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

[groovy]

The hidden patients on hospital waiting lists

Internal hospital documents seen by The Age show that at the end of September last year, 7268 people were waiting for treatment, but only 2487 of them were on the official elective surgery waiting list. A State Opposition analysis of the documents, obtained under freedom of information laws, shows the average waiting time for elective surgery at the Royal Melbourne in September was 235 days.

But one patient had been waiting seven years for a varicose veins operation. A semi-urgent patient had been waiting 1437 days for exploratory surgery on the large intestine, while another patient had been waiting 1157 days for a radiological procedure.

Nearly 130 people had been waiting for more than two years.

The documents show that as well as the 2487 people on the official waiting list, there were 1061 patients needing an operation but not recorded on the list because they had been deemed "not ready" for surgery.

Another 2246 people were waiting for a range of procedures — including diagnostic and recurring treatments such as dialysis — which are not recorded on the official waiting list because they are deemed not to take up significant operating resources at the hospital.

A further 1474 were on the Royal Melbourne's list of outpatients — people who have been given an appointment to see a hospital-based specialist and are waiting to see them. Outpatients on average spent 65 days between getting an appointment and seeing a specialist. One outpatient had been waiting 783 days to see a neurosurgery specialist.

*emphasis added

[daThomas]

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.

And what do the healthcare workers in European systems work for? The gratitude? NO. They get paid.

Try again please.

[daThomas]

Originally Posted by groovy

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

Ok, so the CIA is lying about Cuba having a lower infant mortality rate. Sure. They'd do that.

[daThomas]

Originally Posted by Micael

Where did I say all of the countries have a lesser quality of healthcare?

Your argument has repeatedly been that the "socialist medicine" countries have a lower overall quality of care and that a U.S. gov't OPTION will lead us to that lower quality.

Please don't try to pretend you have not.

[daThomas]

Originally Posted by Micael

No, thats the point you keep hammering on.

No, that's the metric that is necessary to have this discussion and you want to keep avoiding a metric to compare the U.S. system with.

I don't blame you for your avoidance.

[daThomas]

Originally Posted by groovy

The hidden patients on hospital waiting lists


*emphasis added

Minor examples. Equally negative examples can be spotlighted on the illness for profit side.

Let's all agree on a metric(s) to compare overall national healthcare efficacy for the general populous and continue this discussion based on that.

It's the only way this topic will lead anywhere. Unless you just wish to keep the discussion fogged.

[groovy]

Originally Posted by daThomas

Ok, so the CIA is lying about Cuba having a lower infant mortality rate. Sure. They'd do that.

Please read the following posts where I addressed that.

[groovy]

Originally Posted by daThomas

Minor examples. Equally negative examples can be spotlighted on the illness for profit side.

Let's all agree on a metric(s) to compare overall national healthcare efficacy for the general populous and continue this discussion based on that.

It's the only way this topic will lead anywhere. Unless you just wish to keep the discussion fogged.

And what would those be? I already showed how your data on infant mortality is flawed.

EDIT: By the way, whether it's a minor example kind of depends on whether you're one of the people waiting over 200 days for surgery.

[palandri]

Originally Posted by groovy

And what would those be? I already showed how your data on infant mortality is flawed.

EDIT: By the way, whether it's a minor example kind of depends on whether you're one of the people waiting over 200 days for surgery.

So what you are saying is, there is no way to compare healthcare on a metric because all the data is flawed. Any further discussion is flawed because the data is flawed.

But somehow your data of waiting over 200 days for surgery isn't flawed.

Honestly, what sense does that make?

[groovy]

Originally Posted by palandri

So what you are saying is, there is no way to compare healthcare on a metric because all the data is flawed. Any further discussion is flawed because the data is flawed.

But somehow your data of waiting over 200 days for surgery isn't flawed.

Honestly, what sense does that make?

I didn't say all of the data is flawed. I did say that using infant mortality, as it's being defined in various countries, is flawed. I'm open to other suggestions.

[palandri]

Originally Posted by groovy

I didn't say all of the data is flawed. I did say that using infant mortality, as it's being defined in various countries, is flawed. I'm open to other suggestions.

You may not have said it, but to me you are implying it. At this point, I doubt there is any data you won't find flawed.

This whole thread is turning into an ideological debate rather than a factual debate.

[groovy]

Originally Posted by palandri

You may not have said it, but to me you are implying it. At this point, I doubt there is any data you won't find flawed.

This whole thread is turning into an ideological debate rather than a factual debate.

Well, I'm sorry you inferred that I wouldn't be receptive to any data. That would be quite foolish of me. However, isn't it fair to point out when data is flawed?

[palandri]

Originally Posted by groovy

Well, I'm sorry you inferred that I wouldn't be receptive to any data. That would be quite foolish of me. However, isn't it fair to point out when data is flawed?

It's always fair to point out spuriousness in data.

I'll just sit back and watch what happens to the next set of comparable statistics.

[bclinger]

Goodness, we have been busy today. Of the 40-50 million listed below, I sort of wonder what the number is of those people who do not want insurance because they do not need insurance. Why have something if there is no need for it. If it were not for my wife's condition, I would not have insurance because I do not need it. When the need for it arises, I may consider it.

Originally Posted by ryleyinstl

Random example:
People without direct access to heathcare in the USA, 40-50 million.
People without direct access to heathcare in France, zero.

In defense of the USA, it is not the policy of the federal or state governments to insure access to quality healthcare for all of it's citizens.