IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

okie wrote:

Bottom line, in regard to the equation: health care = life expectancy, the equation should read:
Lifestyle + Health care = Life expectancy.

But, little okie, you forgot GENETICS....One of the most important factors determining life expectancy is GENETICS.

Cool

0 Replies

I'll peggy-back on Miller's post above, and add "environment." Something I've mentioned several times before.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

I don't know. I don't see how anybody made the argument that you are trying to counter - that "health care = life expectancy."

Have you even read this thread, oe? Life expectancy was one of the big things thrown out there as evidence we are way down the list in terms of health care. Thats what this discussion has been about in case you missed it. When I suggested other factors like lifestyle was very important, I was told I was an idiot.

Quote:

It's certainly a factor. But every comparison between countries involves a look a numerous factors. There's life expectancy, there's infant mortality, there are cancer survival rates, there are ratios of doctors and nurses and hospital beds per capita, there's the per capita cost of health care, there's the cost of health care in relation to the GDP, there are average waiting times, there's access to health care, there are efficiency and equity of health care, etc. etc. etc.

When looking at the whole picture, those factors do give us a pretty good picture about the health care system in a specific country. That's why nobody argues that the health care system in Burkina Faso just might be the best in the world - in spite of a life expectancy of some 49 years - if it just wasn't for all those cultural factors that you have to take into account.

No.

Looking at the summary of all factors rather seems to suggest that something like a health care system doesn't really exist in Burkina Faso. And looking at the summary of all factors of health care in the USA seems to suggest that the American health care system is not the best one in the world. It's certainly very good for a very large number of people. But apparently, it really sucks for quite a large number of people, too.

In that regard, other countries seem to do better. And I don't suggest that there's one single, perfect system that would work everywhere. There's very likely not a system that doesn't have problems somewhere.

It's just that in summary, there seems to be a better way to implement a health care system than what the United States currently have. Which is a pity, because I'm pretty sure that America could do better - improving the system and bringing down costs.

First of all, I am not convinced that the U.S. does not have the best system in the world. I have yet to see evidence to the contrary. Yes, it has problems, but other countries have problems, and if you wish to compare strengths and weaknesses, then those can be discussed. The fact is alot of people come here from all over the world for treatment, not to get a bargain priced treatment, but for quality treatment.

So now that a couple of myths have been dispelled, I guess we are back to Square One in this debate. A few myths include the conclusion that our system here is completely "broken," and so therefore it must be scrapped for something totally different. Another is that some people are not able to have health care.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

okie wrote:

Bottom line, in regard to the equation: health care = life expectancy, the equation should read:
Lifestyle + Health care = Life expectancy.

But, little okie, you forgot GENETICS....One of the most important factors determining life expectancy is GENETICS.

Okay big miller, add genetics:

Genetics + Lifestyle + Health care = Life Expectancy

Actually I like the formula better. Thanks for the suggestion. However, can you prove genetics of some countries are better overall than other countries? That is political incorrectness territory. Don't the high altitude people in Spain live a long time? Maybe genetics?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

was one of the big things thrown out there

Okie continues with his "fairness doctrine." Okie seems to be environmentally retarded; Okie has never exhibited "fairness" nor have I, nor has C.I nor has almost everyone else posting on a2k. Opinion has little regard for "fairness" I would opine that, often, Georgeob is fair, Thomas is mostly fair but, McGentrix is mostly psychotic.

0 Replies

Dys, I have never read any cogent, detailed and reasoned post, ever, that you have ever placed here. To prove you can do it, I would challenge you to try it just once, maybe about health care. As an example of one lifestyle factor, does obesity affect life expectancy in a significant way, and should that be considered as a significant factor when comparing life expectancy, as an indicator of health care from country to country? Yes or No, and then state your reasons behind your answer.

Let me guess, you won't do it?

0 Replies

silk purse. Do you want to respond to your corrupt display of "fairness?"

0 Replies

It doesn't matter what percentage of the population is "obese" when government(s) considers universal health care. The fact of the matter is, nothing okie's lists on "health issues per capita" has absolutely no meaning.

0 Replies

I suppose you are trying to be funny? Is that your best effort, dys?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I suppose you are trying to be funny? Is that your best effort, dys?

Far better than your no effort at all.

0 Replies

If you can't win in the arena of reason or ideas, you can always take refuge in supposed humor or sarcasm, dys.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

If you can't win in the arena of reason or ideas, you can always take refuge in supposed humor or sarcasm, dys.

How would you know?

0 Replies

I've seen alot of people do it, you one example. You won't answer a simple question. You instead post a cute comment.

0 Replies

"...you one example..." Yes.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

First of all, I am not convinced that the U.S. does not have the best system in the world.

It's hard to convince you if evidence means nothing to you.

okie wrote:

I have yet to see evidence to the contrary.

No.

You have seen evidence. You have yet to make up your mind what it could possibly mean that the US rank so low.

okie wrote:

Yes, it has problems, but other countries have problems, and if you wish to compare strengths and weaknesses, then those can be discussed. The fact is alot of people come here from all over the world for treatment, not to get a bargain priced treatment, but for quality treatment.

Same here. Same in Costa Rica. Same in Thailand. Same in India.

okie wrote:

So now that a couple of myths have been dispelled, I guess we are back to Square One in this debate.

I don't think so. You're arguing against positions nobody has been taking.

okie wrote:

A few myths include the conclusion that our system here is completely "broken,"

No. It's better than the one in Burkina Faso.

Actually, health care in the US is pretty good. It's just not available to everybody. And it's pretty expensive. Which possibly makes the system a bit less efficient than others.

okie wrote:

and so therefore it must be scrapped for something totally different.

No. It just would be nice if it would be adjusted so everyone would be covered.

okie wrote:

Another is that some people are not able to have health care.

Nobody who can afford it is prevented from having health care. Nobody is prevented from having emergency care.

That's something different from a system where everybody has access to health care. I assume you notice the difference.

0 Replies

'Fairness' an interesting concept coming from Okie;
so tell me Okie do you think you are "fair' when responding to information/evidence/opinion when it comes from what you regard as a liberal?
Yes, or
No?
Oh and yes I will use your past posts to rebut your answer.

0 Replies

I have to say that I don't think government coverage of everyone is the best answer. There are many people who abuse what free/cheap healthcare there is now. I can only imagine what it would be like if they were given more access.

Supose we do adopt some form of "universal health care" - would there be co-pays or limits on the amount of payout ? How do we determine this?

0 Replies

There are some "ability to pay" schemes that might work. I also believe nothing should be entirely "free" to reduce abuse. No system is perfect, but a universal health system assures that those who need medical care will get it. A healthy society benefits everyone.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

... a universal health system assures that those who need medical care will get it.

There will be hundreds of thousands of patients visiting their physicians, who don't have a medical problem, but enjoy getting attention in a clinic setting. The system will be over burdened and those who're really in need of care, will have to wait in long lines
for appointments.

0 Replies

Miller wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
... a universal health system assures that those who need medical care will get it.

There will be hundreds of thousands of patients visiting their physicians, who don't have a medical problem, but enjoy getting attention in a clinic setting. The system will be over burdened and those who're really in need of care, will have to wait in long lines
for appointments.

Miller, Is this factual information or a figment of your imagination? There are "free clinics" in some parts of San Jose that I have visited, but they were no more busy than the emergency room at Valley Medical Center. I have visited the emergency room of Kaiser several times over the years, and have found from a handful to about a dozen people waiting. As you know, they are required to see all patients irregardless of ability to pay. There was always an intake nurse before we were able to see the doc. I also believe some form of co-pays will help reduce abuse.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know