IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

BEST HEALTHCARE IN THE WORLD, BABY...

A pair of researchers has just published an update that compares various countries on their rates of "amenable mortality," defined as deaths that are "potentially preventable with timely and effective health care." In 1997, the United States ranked 15th out of 19 industrialized countries. So how are we doing now?

Answer: we're now 19th out of 19. The rest of the countries have improved their performance by an average of 16%, while the U.S., that well-known engine of healthcare innovation, has improved by only 4%. So now we're in last place.

But there's a bright side: at least our healthcare isn't funded by the government, like it is in France. Keep that in mind if someone you know dies of preventable causes. Their odds would have been a whole lot better in Paris, but who'd want to live in a socialist hellhole like that anyway?

hokie wrote :

Quote:

Something relevant....

would you like to tell us what you see as "relevant" in health care ?

if neither death or morbidity rates nor infant mortality rates are considered a standard by which one might rate health care , what standards do you propose should be used ?
hbg

hamburger wrote:

what standards do you propose should be used ?
hbg

How quickly HE and HIS family gets treated of course....who gives a F*** about everybody else, those lazy bastards.

maporsche wrote:

hamburger wrote:

what standards do you propose should be used ?
hbg

How quickly HE and HIS family gets treated of course....who gives a F*** about everybody else, those lazy bastards.

I second this post; personal greed does funny things to the human mind.
Denmak has universal health care and a 63 percent tax rate, but they are the happiest citizens on this planet; they feel everybody deserves the best health care; they are their brother's keeper. What ever happened to the 90 percent christians in this country?

cicerone imposter wrote:

maporsche wrote:

hamburger wrote:

what standards do you propose should be used ?
hbg

How quickly HE and HIS family gets treated of course....who gives a F*** about everybody else, those lazy bastards.

I second this post; personal greed does funny things to the human mind.
Denmak has universal health care and a 63 percent tax rate, but they are the happiest citizens on this planet; they feel everybody deserves the best health care; they are their brother's keeper. What ever happened to the 90 percent christians in this country?

They are the happiest people on the planet? How exactly did you measure that? How do you know that is what "they feel" ?

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

maporsche wrote:

hamburger wrote:

what standards do you propose should be used ?
hbg

How quickly HE and HIS family gets treated of course....who gives a F*** about everybody else, those lazy bastards.

I second this post; personal greed does funny things to the human mind.
Denmak has universal health care and a 63 percent tax rate, but they are the happiest citizens on this planet; they feel everybody deserves the best health care; they are their brother's keeper. What ever happened to the 90 percent christians in this country?

They are the happiest people on the planet? How exactly did you measure that? How do you know that is what "they feel" ?

Perhaps they used this new technology called a 'poll,' or it's cousin, the 'survey.'

CI is right, that the Christians in America don't act like it at all.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

maporsche wrote:

hamburger wrote:

what standards do you propose should be used ?
hbg

How quickly HE and HIS family gets treated of course....who gives a F*** about everybody else, those lazy bastards.

I second this post; personal greed does funny things to the human mind.
Denmak has universal health care and a 63 percent tax rate, but they are the happiest citizens on this planet; they feel everybody deserves the best health care; they are their brother's keeper. What ever happened to the 90 percent christians in this country?

They are the happiest people on the planet? How exactly did you measure that? How do you know that is what "they feel" ?

Perhaps they used this new technology called a 'poll,' or it's cousin, the 'survey.'

CI is right, that the Christians in America don't act like it at all.

Cycloptichorn

Christians have never really acted very "christ-like" - but that's for another thread...

Interestingly enough, if you care to read the article about the death rates from which the above graph was posted, the US was doing much better than the UK and Denmark until about 2002-2003. Wasn't that about the time we went to war?

Oh, and I'll like the actual study... so that no one will read it entirely and have an actual well-formed opinion about the data. ;-)

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/27/1/58

From BBC:


Denmark 'happiest place on earth'
If it is happiness you are seeking a move to Denmark could be in order, according to the first scientist to make a world map of happiness.
Adrian White, from the UK's University of Leicester, used the responses of 80,000 people worldwide to map out subjective wellbeing.

Denmark came top, followed closely by Switzerland and Austria. The UK ranked 41st. Zimbabwe and Burundi came bottom.

A nation's level of happiness was most closely associated with health levels.

Interestingly enough, if you care to read the article about the death rates from which the above graph was posted, the US was doing much better than the UK and Denmark until about 2002-2003. Wasn't that about the time we went to war?

Oh, and I'll like the actual study... so that no one will read it entirely and have an actual well-formed opinion about the data. ;-)

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/27/1/58

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Interestingly enough, if you care to read the article about the death rates from which the above graph was posted, the US was doing much better than the UK and Denmark until about 2002-2003. Wasn't that about the time we went to war?

Oh, and I'll like the actual study... so that no one will read it entirely and have an actual well-formed opinion about the data. ;-)

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/27/1/58

That was meant to be ironic, right? The full text you linked to clearly states what causes of death where selected. It doesn't include any war-related injuries/deaths.


And of course, quite apart from that, just as Cycloptichorn said: 4000 deaths in relation to 300 million people come down to 1.3 deaths/100,000 population.

Even if they were fully included, they wouldn't even start to account for the 6 deaths/100,000 that America is behind Portugal. Not to mention the 45 deaths/100,000 between America and France.

old europe wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Interestingly enough, if you care to read the article about the death rates from which the above graph was posted, the US was doing much better than the UK and Denmark until about 2002-2003. Wasn't that about the time we went to war?

Oh, and I'll like the actual study... so that no one will read it entirely and have an actual well-formed opinion about the data. ;-)

http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/27/1/58

That was meant to be ironic, right? The full text you linked to clearly states what causes of death where selected. It doesn't include any war-related injuries/deaths.


And of course, quite apart from that, just as Cycloptichorn said: 4000 deaths in relation to 300 million people come down to 1.3 deaths/100,000 population.

Even if they were fully included, they wouldn't even start to account for the 6 deaths/100,000 that America is behind Portugal. Not to mention the 45 deaths/100,000 between America and France.

no, it wasn't sarcasm. but i never said "these are war deaths!" i was just pointing out that the us went into the shitter about that time. sorry for not spelling it out for you guys.

1.3 deaths/100,000 population.

but i never said "these are war deaths!"

i was just pointing out that the us went into the shitter about that time. sorry for not spelling it out for you guys.

If our country can afford to spend 2.7 billion every week in Iraq, there's no reason we can't be spending that money in the US to help the citizens who are funding that illegal war.

c.i. wrote--

Quote:

If our country can afford to spend 2.7 billion every week in Iraq, there's no reason we can't be spending that money in the US to help the citizens who are funding that illegal war.

That's an assertion which your Government does not agree with and you voted it into office.

The elderly always want free health care c.i. for obvious reasons. They need health care most and they aren't paying for it.