Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (377840)	4/11/2008 11:08:48 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1578900

Those are excellent links Tim, esp. the last one which really states the facts in simple terms. The United States continues to have the best healthcare in the world when rated objectively. I know of many, many patients who have received chemo at $6,000/week without ever spending a nickel -- many of them poor, with the tab picked up by Medicaid (most are paid by Medicare). Now, someone could argue that those people should be allowed to die of their illness. Or that the drugs should be cheaper (the reality, of course, is that modern chemo drugs wouldn't exist if they were cheaper). Those same chemo drugs are available in other countries for less money -- solely because Americans pick up the tab for the balance. That someone who saw a Michael Moore film comes here with these outrageous claims about Costa Rica having better health care than the United States is not surprising, but it IS indicative of a problem -- with widespread belief that Americans are getting lousy health care, people are apt to rush toward a "solution" that will upend a well-functioning system.

To: TimF who wrote (377840)	4/13/2008 1:41:59 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578900

First, can I say that John Stossel is one of the bigger assholes in this country, ranking right up there with O'Reilly and Hannity. Secondly, his explanation is so rife with hyperbole that I am surprised he calls himself a creditable journalist. Actually, may be he no longer does. The WHO judged a country's quality of health on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem. He wants us to believe that our accident rate is so mucher than other nations that it can significantly impact life expectancy. I knew American cars weren't as good as some foreign models, but are they this bad? I don't think so. Similarly, our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada. Wasn't it just a couple of years ago you all were saying that Europe had nearly caught up with us when it came to crime? Suddenly our homicide rate is 10x greater than the UK's??? You guys have so much BS its coming out of your ears. When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation. I don't buy it.....prove it. Why is he not proving it? Diet and lack of exercise also bring down average life expectancy. Of course, this has to be the reason.....NOT. Another reason the U.S. didn't score high in the WHO rankings is that we are less socialistic than other nations. What has that got to do with the quality of health care? For the authors of the study, it's crucial. The WHO judged countries not on the absolute quality of health care, but on how "fairly" health care of any quality is "distributed." The problem here is obvious. By that criterion, a country with high-quality care overall but "unequal distribution" would rank below a country with lower quality care but equal distribution. It's when this so-called "fairness," a highly subjective standard, is factored in that the U.S. scores go south. Ah now, we get to the real reason.....many people don't have access to good health in this country. Now let's watch how the nazi explains its away: The U.S. ranking is influenced heavily by the number of people -- 45 million -- without medical insurance. As I reported in previous columns, our government aggravates that problem by making insurance artificially expensive with, for example, mandates for coverage that many people would not choose and forbidding us to buy policies from companies in another state. Even with these interventions, the 45 million figure is misleading. Thirty-seven percent of that group live in households making more than $50,000 a year, says the U.S. Census Bureau. Nineteen percent are in households making more than $75,000 a year; 20 percent are not citizens, and 33 percent are eligible for existing government programs but are not enrolled. For all its problems, the U.S. ranks at the top for quality of care and innovation, including development of life-saving drugs. It "falters" only when the criterion is proximity to socialized medicine. Yes, that's right.....the US has good quality health care. Unfortunately, a lot of people can't get it. Jerkoff Stossel finally redeems himself.....sort of.