hamburger wrote: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
The original report from the early 1970s (1973 If I recall correctly) compared data from 41 countries and the U.S. came in in 11th position. That would put the U.S. in the top 27%.
The more recent data that puts the U.S. in 42nd place is a comparison of 222 countries. That would put the U.S. in the top 19% worldwide.
So even though the position number is lower for the latter report, which is the "better" position?
To learn from any stats the stats have to be kept in context. Those who are crying that the sky is falling because the position number of the U.S. has dropped are looking at the simple raw numbers and ignoring the context.
cicerone imposter wrote:What other constant is there besides "life expectancy" of all the countries included in the survey?
That isn't the problem. The issue is that there are causes of death that aren't related to health care. If you want to use the data as evidence of impact of UHC then you have to limit the life expectancy data to the causes of death that health care actually impacts.
In other words, if we implemented UHC would that eliminate (or reduce) deaths due to hang-gliding accidents? Car accidents? Presumably, if people didn't die in those accidents they'd die of some other cause later on in life - which would result in a higher overall life expectancy rate.
And you'd need that data for all of the countries in any survey if you wish to make comparisons between countries.
You miss the point, Walter: the point is sample size. The CIA's sample size is constant in each year, not variable.
fishin wrote:hamburger wrote: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
Why?
And just for clarification on why I'm asking why - look at the top 10 countries from a wealth (per capita) perspective and where they end up on the life expectancy chart (both rankings are based on the 2007 CIA Factbook):
The 1st ranking is per-capita wealth. The (#) is their life expectancy ranking in the world.
1. Luxembourg (29)
2. Qatar (89)
3. Norway (20)
4. Kuwait (53)
5. United Arab Emirates (71)
6. Singapore (5)
7. United States (45)
8. Ireland (48)
9. Equatorial Guinea (197)
10. Switzerland (9)
There doesn't appear to be any correlation between per-capita wealth and life expectancy in a nation-to-nation comparison.
In A2K some are well informed.
sORRY:
In Abuzz many were ill informed.
Miller
with due respect i beg to submit about CIA's statistics..
The truthis this.
Cuba under Castro is umpteen times better than India, or Germany.
My sister vouchsafe my views
Most doctors favor universal healthcare
Published: March 31, 2008 at 5:57 PM
INDIANAPOLIS, March 31 (UPI) -- Fifty-nine percent of U.S. doctors support government legislation to establish national health insurance, with 32 percent opposing it, a survey reveals.
A similar survey in 2002 by Indiana University found 49 percent of physicians supporting national health insurance and 40 percent opposing universal healthcare.
The nationwide survey of 2,200 physicians, conducted by the Indiana University School of Medicine's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, found 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine physicians, 65 percent of pediatricians and 64 percent of internists favor government action to establish national health coverage.
There are more than 800,000 U.S. doctors so the 10 percent increase in support for national health insurance represents at least 80,000 physicians who have changed their minds about the issue, study authors Dr. Aaron E. Carroll and and Dr. Ronald T. Ackermann said in a statement.
"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," Carroll said, adding that "more and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."
The findings are published in the April issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Advocate wrote:Most doctors favor universal healthcare
Published: March 31, 2008 at 5:57 PM
INDIANAPOLIS, March 31 (UPI) -- Fifty-nine percent of U.S. doctors support government legislation to establish national health insurance, with 32 percent opposing it, a survey reveals.
A similar survey in 2002 by Indiana University found 49 percent of physicians supporting national health insurance and 40 percent opposing universal healthcare.
The nationwide survey of 2,200 physicians, conducted by the Indiana University School of Medicine's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, found 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine physicians, 65 percent of pediatricians and 64 percent of internists favor government action to establish national health coverage.
There are more than 800,000 U.S. doctors so the 10 percent increase in support for national health insurance represents at least 80,000 physicians who have changed their minds about the issue, study authors Dr. Aaron E. Carroll and and Dr. Ronald T. Ackermann said in a statement.
"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," Carroll said, adding that "more and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."
The findings are published in the April issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.
This is crap. They sampled about 0.275% and base these statements on this???? The survey is worthless with this sample size.
Considering that there are probably millions ;of physicians, the number polled may be reasonable. I doubt if you will find anything to the contrary regarding the findings.
USAFHokie80 wrote:Advocate wrote:Most doctors favor universal healthcare
Published: March 31, 2008 at 5:57 PM
INDIANAPOLIS, March 31 (UPI) -- Fifty-nine percent of U.S. doctors support government legislation to establish national health insurance, with 32 percent opposing it, a survey reveals.
A similar survey in 2002 by Indiana University found 49 percent of physicians supporting national health insurance and 40 percent opposing universal healthcare.
The nationwide survey of 2,200 physicians, conducted by the Indiana University School of Medicine's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research, found 83 percent of psychiatrists, 69 percent of emergency medicine physicians, 65 percent of pediatricians and 64 percent of internists favor government action to establish national health coverage.
There are more than 800,000 U.S. doctors so the 10 percent increase in support for national health insurance represents at least 80,000 physicians who have changed their minds about the issue, study authors Dr. Aaron E. Carroll and and Dr. Ronald T. Ackermann said in a statement.
"Many claim to speak for physicians and represent their views. We asked doctors directly and found that, contrary to conventional wisdom, most doctors support national health insurance," Carroll said, adding that "more and more, physicians are turning to national health insurance as a solution to this problem."
The findings are published in the April issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.
This is crap. They sampled about 0.275% and base these statements on this???? The survey is worthless with this sample size.
Typically a survey of 2,000+ people will come up with a result that is within 3-4% points for accuracy so I don't know that saying it's crap based on the survey numbers is true.
That said, the survey was conducted by the Indiana University School of Medicine's Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research - a Center who's director (Dr. Aaron E. Carroll) was the lead author of the study and is also a member of "Physicians For A National Health Plan" and "Hoosiers for a Commonsense Health Plan" - both of which advocate for a single payer healthcare system - which makes it very questionable.
From the CHPPR:
"The CHPPR was established earlier this year as a think tank to conduct rapid turnaround research on the hottest topics of the day related to health including healthcare financing, health insurance, medical education and training, and ethical, professional and legal issues pertaining to physician practice."
One could easily question whether or not this study had a predetermined outcome. I'm not willing to pay $20 to read the actual study to find out however...
hokie wrote :
Quote:This is crap. They sampled about 0.275% and base these statements on this???? The survey is worthless with this sample size.
can you tell us what the correct sample size should have been ?
short of including every item (person) in a survey , one has to rely on statistical sampling .
often an answer based on statistical sampling will show :
this answer will be correct within two percentages points plus or minus , 19 out of 20 times .
i'm reasonably sure that the full answer would have supplied that information - condensed newspaper reports will usually leave out such qualification .
i have noticed that sample-based results (political polls) announced on TV news now often include this qualification .
for information on statistical sampling see link given below or go to wiki :
STATISTICAL SAMPLING
Fishin - the same 2 doctors conducted another survey 5 years ago, and that text is available free of charge. Some details of the original survey seem to have been carried over to their current one, starting with the fact the original sample selected was random - but only about half of all recipients returned their questionnaires, so the ex post sample may (or may not!) be strongly biased:
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/139/10/795
Quote:
Objective: To determine the general attitudes of U.S. physicians toward the financing of national health care.
Design: Cross-sectional study.
Setting: National mailed survey.
Participants: 3188 randomly sampled physicians from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile.
Measurements: Physicians were asked whether they support or oppose 1) governmental legislation to establish national health insurance and 2) a national health insurance plan in which all health care is paid for by the federal government. Weighted multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors that independently predicted support for each of these strategies.
Results: Sixty percent of eligible participants returned a survey. Forty-nine percent of physicians supported governmental legislation to establish national health insurance, and 40% opposed it. Only 26% of all physicians supported a national health insurance plan in which all health care is paid for by the federal government. In analyses adjusting for differences in personal and practice characteristics, physicians in a primary care specialty, physicians reporting that at least 20% of their patients had Medicaid, and physicians practicing in a nonprivate setting or in an inner-city location were statistically significantly more likely to support governmental legislation to establish national health insurance.
once again sorry.
A country which land in MOON without any problems struggle to help the poor innocents is not a country.
A country which wage war in the name of DEMOCRACY DECENCENY Liberty but fail to uphold the products which are unfamiliar is not my country
A country which( without basic knowledge of the culture of the land ) uplift the image of tax-payers and ignore the innocent local people is not my country.
Hell is there
Thanks
Rama
Universal Healthcare NO THANKS
Who said THAT?
Please people do you want cheap cookie cutter healthcare?
really there is a better answer for the healthcare problem.
They know the answer they won't choose that methos because they have to stay rich.
Sorry it does sound so negative but the poor you will always have with you...who said that?
Jesus
Re: Universal Healthcare NO THANKS
CarolynFlorida wrote:Who said THAT?
Please people do you want cheap cookie cutter healthcare?
really there is a better answer for the healthcare problem.
They know the answer they won't choose that methos because they have to stay rich.
Sorry it does sound so negative but the poor you will always have with you...who said that?
Jesus
Cheap cookie cutter healthcare sounds pretty good to me. It is certainly better than the present situation in which one of three people have no or inadequate coverage, people are afraid to make career changes because of coverage concerns, employers are burdened with huge premiums, when the money should be invested in the business, etc.
Some of the posters say that one needs only enlist Medicaid to provide for healthcare. Not so!
2008: The Healthcare Crisis
May 21st, 2008
COLUMBUS, Ga. (WTVM)-The three remaining presidential candidates left in the race do a lot of talking about healthcare...but that talk just doesn't cut it for Columbus resident Tiffani Stacy.
Her 63-year old mother is one of those 47 million uninsured Americans who have no choice but to try and get by without healthcare.
"Honestly, you deal with it...lots of people don't go to the doctor who can't afford insurance, and you just deal with it," said Stacy.
Valley Healthcare Systems in Columbus tries to help people like Stacy...as a federally funded clinic with discounted primary care, almost 60% of the patients they see do not have any health insurance.
Most of those people make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford insurance...falling through the cracks, helpless to take care of themselves or the people they love.
"Imagine we had a loved one we couldn't do anything about and they needed medical care, what do we do, its very helpless," said Jennifer Melvin, the Chief Financial Officer of Valley Healthcare Systems.
With this broken system, the people most affected feel like they are caught in a never ending cycle.
"If you work, they lose their Medicaid, because you can't make over a certain amount. Then when your working, you don't have health insurance, and you have to quit your job to get back on welfare," said Stacy.
Both the Democratic candidates want to provide universal healthcare for all Americans, where people can enroll in public or private plans, and get tax credits, making coverage more affordable.
The big difference is that Hillary Clinton wants to make healthcare mandatory for everybody, where Barack Obama will only mandate coverage for children.
No universal healthcare for John McCain though...he will instead give tax credits to families to offset the cost of health insurance, and wants to form a federal plan for people with preexisting conditions if they are turned away from private companies.
--wtvm.com
Seems, insurance companies want to stop private health insurances in Germany:
Quote:10.06.2008
German insurance association calls for end to Germany's dual-track health system - report
FRANKFURT (Thomson Financial) - German insurance association GDV has called for an end to Germany's dual-track health insurance system of private and state schemes, Financial Times Deutschland reported, citing from an internal draft proposal it obtained.
According to the proposal, both private and state health insurance companies would offer an elementary coverage and add-on insurance packages, effectively eliminating the current distinction between private and state health care, the newspaper reported.
The premiums for the basic scheme would be standardised and independent of age or sex and the insurer would not be allowed to turn applicants down while the add-on services would cover any medical services that go beyond basic needs and would be less strictly regulated.
GDV is seeking radical changes to the system because it is dominated by large listed companies such as Allianz SE., whose private health insurance businesses have been burdened by a large number of older members.
Other health insurers such as Debeka and Signal Iduna, which are based on mutual business models, are opposing such an overhaul because they fear the restructuring costs, Financial Times Deutschland said.
Other GDV members backing the proposal include Axa and Munich Re's Ergo unit, the paper reported.
Currently, Germany has both a state health system, with premiums depending on income, which pays doctors' bills directly, and a separate private-sector health coverage, which applies only to people above a certain income threshold and which is more loosely regulated.
The private scheme charges premiums independent of members' income and it reimburses patients' expenses paid to doctors.
[email protected] lb/lb/rfw
Source
Walter,
Why would any of the providers or consumers in the German health care system - which you have repeatedly assured us was a model of long-standing perfection that enjoyed widespread public support and was served by happy, financially healthy insurance companies, contented doctors and specialists - want to change any aspect of this system??
