USAFHokie80 wrote:Wow... you guys sure do get defensive... I wasn't trying to slam Germany or anything else, so calm down.
No, just German hospitals
USAFHokie80 wrote:this isn't directly related to the main topic, but it does have to do with german hospitals.
USAFHokie80 wrote:Wow... you guys sure do get defensive... I wasn't trying to slam Germany or anything else, so calm down.
Funny that quoting the article you linked to would be perceived as "defensive".
Anyways. Don't worry. If you want to criticise the German (or any other) health care system, go ahead. There are valid reasons for criticism.
But when you're looking at health care system, there are really quite a lot of valid, quite objective indicators available to measure how specific health care systems compare. Statistics on costs, waiting times, availability, quality, etc. etc.
I don't believe the German health care system is the best one in the world. I think there are valid reasons for looking at other countries and how they are handling this issue. Can't hurt.
I just think posting anecdotes about other countries (most often along the lines of "cockroach found in operating room") and drawing the conclusion that therefore, the American health care system must be the best one in the world is ridiculous.
Not saying that you did that. But if you've following the threads on health care systems here, you'll have noticed that people have been arguing from that angle.
old europe wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:Wow... you guys sure do get defensive... I wasn't trying to slam Germany or anything else, so calm down.
Funny that quoting the article you linked to would be perceived as "defensive".
Anyways. Don't worry. If you want to criticize the German (or any other) health care system, go ahead. There are valid reasons for criticism.
But when you're looking at health care system, there are really quite a lot of valid, quite objective indicators available to measure how specific health care systems compare. Statistics on costs, waiting times, availability, quality, etc. etc.
I don't believe the German health care system is the best one in the world. I think there are valid reasons for looking at other countries and how they are handling this issue. Can't hurt.
I just think posting anecdotes about other countries (most often along the lines of "cockroach found in operating room") and drawing the conclusion that therefore, the American health care system must be the best one in the world is ridiculous.
Not saying that you did that. But if you've following the threads on health care systems here, you'll have noticed that people have been arguing from that angle.
Funny that you seem to read things I didn't say. WHERE DID I CRITICIZE ANYTHING? All I did was link an article about a screw up at a German hospital. I didn't say anything else. I didn't say "hey, look how stupid the Germans are" or "look how poor Germany's hospitals are." I said NOTHING.
If you think I criticized anything, you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
Walter Hinteler wrote:USAFHokie80 wrote:Wow... you guys sure do get defensive... I wasn't trying to slam Germany or anything else, so calm down.
No, just German hospitals
USAFHokie80 wrote:this isn't directly related to the main topic, but it does have to do with german hospitals.
Can you explain to me how that is criticizing German hospitals in any way? I just posted a link - I made no comments.
Well, I'd thaught your "but it does have to do with german hospitals" was a comment outside the link.
Sorry that I misread that.
USAFHokie80 wrote:old europe wrote:If you want to criticize the German (or any other) health care system, go ahead. There are valid reasons for criticism.
Funny that you seem to read things I didn't say. WHERE DID I CRITICIZE ANYTHING?
Funny that you seem to read things I didn't say.
Universal Health care in USA is a DREAM .
Forget it
Our present system of healthcare cannot be sustained.
HEALTH CARE
Wellness Gap
According to a recent economic outlook by the Center for American Progress (CAP), "[r]eal hourly and weekly wages in January 2008 were lower than at any point in the previous 15 months," and for the last seven years, real weekly wages have remained flat -- "only 0.8% higher in January 2008 than in March 2001." Additionally, the share of Americans with employer-provided health insurance dropped from 64.2 percent to 59.7 percent from 2000 to 2006, and people are paying more for transportation, utilities, food, and medical care. Indeed, working-class Americans -- "who were down on the economy long before the word recession was uttered" -- are seeing skyrocketing health care costs "whacking away at their wages." Employers are also feeling the pinch, paying more for health care, which leaves less for their employees' wages. But the economic situation in the U.S. is having another adverse affect on Americans' health. New research from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) shows "large and growing" disparities in life expectancy for richer and poorer Americans which has paralleled the growing gap of income inequality over the last 20 years.
RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS, LOW WAGES: A September 2007 report by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that family health care premiums increased 78 percent since 2001, while wages increased only 20 percent. The Washington Post recently reported that "[e]ven though workers are producing more, inflation-adjusted median family income has dipped 2.6 percent -- or nearly $1,000 annually since 2000" as a result of rising health care costs. Service Employees International Union vice president Katherine Taylor said that because of souring health care costs, "[t]here are people out here making decisions about whether to keep their lights on or buy a prescription." Additionally, employers are paying more for health care. The Labor Department reported this month that a higher percentage of employee compensation costs is going to benefits rather than wages. A recent study on employer-based health care found that "job-based insurance premiums have risen by 98 percent between 2000 and 2007." While one CAP study found that "ever-escalating health care costs are placing a huge strain on employment-based health insurance," a National Association of Manufacturers survey last year similarly said that 90 percent of respondents "named the cost of health insurance as one of their top-three worries -- ranking it higher than government regulation, competition from imports or finding qualified employees."
THE LIFE EXPECTANCY GAP: With health care costs eating away at working Americans' wages, the the life expectancy gap is widening between rich and poor. HHS research shows that 20 years ago, "people in the most affluent group could expect to live 2.8 years longer than people in the most deprived group." But by 2000, "the difference in life expectancy had increased to 4.5 years...and it continues to grow." HHS researcher Dr. Gopal K. Singh added that the "life expectancy was higher for the most affluent in 1980 than for the most deprived group in 2000." What explains the widening gap? Researchers noted that "lower-income people are less likely to have health insurance, so they are less likely to receive checkups, screenings, diagnostic tests, prescription drugs and other types of care." Moreover, affluent and higher educated Americans are more likely to utilize advances in medical science and technology.
CONSERVATIVE FUEL TO THE FIRE: Both Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) are addressing the root cause of the disparity in life expectancy by making expanding health care coverage and reducing costs central to their presidential campaigns. However, in following a flawed conservative approach to health care, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) plans to free insurance companies from state regulations, a move that would ultimately "reduce costs for insurers at the expense of people." His plan relies on high-deductible insurance policies tied to tax-preferred savings accounts or Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Families or individuals will draw from the HSAs to pay the high deductibles. McCain's theory? Let Americans use their own money to choose "quality" health care. But in reality, there is little information available on health care cost and quality, while about two-thirds of firms do not make a contribution to HSAs for single coverage and about half do not contribute to HSAs for family coverage. The result is that McCain's plan would raise families' costs for less care. At the same time, McCain would raise taxes on all Americans with employer-sponsored plans. Indeed, HSAs make insurance companies a lot of money. McCain's health care plan "isn't about improving quality. It's about supporting the insurance industry." CAP has put together a progressive prescription for guaranteeing every American's right to affordable, quality health coverage.
--americanprogressaction.com
Advocate wrote: Both Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) are addressing the root cause of the disparity in life expectancy by making expanding health care coverage and reducing costs central to their presidential campaigns.
Where has anyone ever shown that a lack of universial healthcare is the "root cause" of the differecnces in life expectancy??
Lots of wishful thinking there... as usual.
Fishin, why do you think we are at the bottom of the list of advanced countries regarding life expectancy?
Did you read "Wellness Gap," which I posted? Now, people are cutting back on healthcare to pay for gas.
Advocate wrote:Fishin, why do you think we are at the bottom of the list of advanced countries regarding life expectancy?
I don't have a solid answer for that and (apparently) neither does anyone else. But UHC doesn't seem to be the "root cause" in any case.
The numbers used to come up with your little stat include deaths from all causes. I doubt many medical professionals will claim with a straight face that UHC is going to eliminate or even reduce the number of deaths due to car accidents, drowning, murders, etc... in any signifincant numbers. What happens to the numbers when the stats are limited to deaths attributable to something that the health care system can actually do something about? (The only people I've seen that have been willing to look at those numbers so far are the health insurance companies and they claim the U.S. suddenly jumps to 3rd in the world when they do.)
If UHC was the actual root cause of the difference then that difference between countries that have it and the U.S. should be widening. Most of the European countries have had some form of UHC for better than 40 years now. We should be able to look at life expectancy data since say... 1960 between countries and see what the increases (or decreases) have been in each country. If UHC is the true root cause then life expectancy in countries with it should have increased more than those without it but doesn't appear to be the case. The increases in life expetcancy in the U.S. have kept pace with other countries.
But, the alarming stat that many like to quote so often about the U.S. dropping from 11th to 42nd in the world as far as life expectancy goes has nothing to do with health care at all. The difference is because of the increase in countries included in the survey.
Though the USA is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not provide universal health care this doesn't per se mean that this is the only or even main reason for being at bottom of the list of advanced countries regarding life expectancy.
Such would be a very easy but narrow-gauged view, IMHO.
Well, since we've universal health care since the 1880's, the UK for instance (as NHS) since 1948 .... we really could compare those numbers ... :wink:
here is an interesting article from BUSINESSWEEK (certainly not a left-wing rag , i would think) that shows what has happenend to some americans that have faithfully paid their health-insurance premiums , only to find out ... (well , you better read for yourselves - the article link shows a sidebar giving further details on "reasonable" fees that you may not want to miss ) .
hbg
Quote:News February 21, 2008
Wrangling Over 'Reasonable' Fees
It's a no-holds-barred battle between health insurers and hospitals, with customers caught in the middle
A new and fearsome player has joined the long-simmering battle between insurers and health-care providers over how much should be paid for medical procedures. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo announced on Feb. 13 that a six-month investigation by his office found the nation's biggest health insurers have systematically defrauded consumers in the state by setting their reimbursement rates for out-of-network care artificially low. He has issued subpoenas to 16 insurers and intends to sue industry giant UnitedHealth Group (UNH).
But while Cuomo's probe centers on Ingenix (UNH), a unit of UnitedHealth that is the nation's largest provider of health-care billing information, experts say reimbursement problems plague the entire industry. "We have price anarchy in health care," says Alan Sager, professor of health policy at Boston University's School of Public Health. "Cuomo flipped over one log in the forest." "This problem is difficult to address because it concerns behaviors that are hidden, complicated, and recurring," says Boston University's Sager. Adds Tim Ryles, former Georgia insurance commissioner and an insurance regulatory consultant in Atlanta: "This is long overdue."
source :
BUSINESSWEEK
fishin wrote :
Quote:But, the alarming stat that many like to quote so often about the U.S. dropping from 11th to 42nd in the world as far as life expectancy goes has nothing to do with health care at all. The difference is because of the increase in countries included in the survey.
fishin must be right . what are all those other countries showing better life expectancy doing in that survey ?
the best way to deal with this would be to eliminate all countries showing better life expectancy than the U.S. from the survey ! it sure would show that the U.S. is NUMERO UNO quite rightly !
(sorry , but i still having stopped laughing ... and crying :wink:
)
hbg
hamburger wrote:fishin wrote :
Quote:But, the alarming stat that many like to quote so often about the U.S. dropping from 11th to 42nd in the world as far as life expectancy goes has nothing to do with health care at all. The difference is because of the increase in countries included in the survey.
fishin must be right . what are all those other countries showing better life expectancy doing in that survey ?
the best way to deal with this would be to eliminate all countries showing better life expectancy than the U.S. from the survey ! it sure would show that the U.S. is NUMERO UNO quite rightly !
(sorry , but i still having stopped laughing ... and crying :wink:
)
hbg
As usual, you missed the point entirely...
o.k. , i'll read again what fishin wrote - with extra care .
Quote:But, the alarming stat that many like to quote so often about the U.S. dropping from 11th to 42nd in the world as far as life expectancy goes has nothing to do with health care at all.
this seems to show that 41 countries have better life expectancy than the U.S. - am i wrong ?
The difference is because of the increase in countries included in the survey.
so some of those newly included countries have better life expectancy than the U.S. - am i wrong ?
perhaps you wanted to tell us that the U.S. being in eleventh place before the new countries were included was already not in one of the better positions - with that i would agree .
or what else can we learn from the stats ?
hbg
What other constant is there besides "life expectancy" of all the countries included in the survey?
Hamburger - surely Fishin's meaning is clear: relative rankings depend on sample size: if you're number 5 player in your neighborhood amateur team, that's fine, but if you're # 5, or even # 55, player IN THE WORLD, that's probably a whole lot better!
I don't understand the difficulty you seem to be having with this point.
So the CIA-factbook's
Rank Order - Life expectancy at birth is just about neighbourhood amateur teams?
Any idea where to find the list of the world players? :wink:
high seas wrote :
Quote:Hamburger - surely Fishin's meaning is clear: relative rankings depend on sample size: if you're number 5 player in your neighborhood amateur team, that's fine, but if you're # 5, or even # 55, player IN THE WORLD, that's probably a whole lot better!
I don't understand the difficulty you seem to be having with this point.
so is it fair to say that being in eleventh postion was already not an enviable position for the U.S. to be in - or was that quite an acceptable postion for the U.S. to be in - just like the 42nd position is now ?
being one of the richest countries in the world - if not the richest one - , i would think that the U.S. surely could be doing better than #11 or 42 .
hbg
