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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (11068)	11/5/2009 8:33:08 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

"Moreover, there is one American health statistic that is strikingly above average: life expectancy for Americans who have already reached the age of 65. At that point, they can expect to live longer than the average in industrialized countries. That’s because Americans above age 65 actually have universal health care coverage: Medicare. Suddenly, a diverse population with pockets of poverty is no longer such a drawback." That's fascinating. What's fascinating about it is that he uses it as an argument for the US having terrible health care and either doesn't see that it contradicts his point or is trying to fool us. Let's dissect that point. His implication is that if you compare the segment of US population that has universal coverage with the equivalent foreign populations, we are the best, ergo, if we had universal coverage, we would have the greatest life expectancy across all segments of the population. Universal coverage is the critical difference. So, is that the critical difference? Well, he's right that there aren't many differences to choose from. Both populations use the sames doctors and hospitals, who provide the same protocols and treatments for the same ailments, with a few exceptions such as gerontologists, obstetricians, and pediatricians. So, unless our obstetricians and pediatricians are uniquely incompetent, our doctors and hospitals and protocols and treatments must be the best in the world and foreigners with bucks are right to come here for treatment. What other differences are there. Well, there is age. And the behaviors that relate to age. Do our younger people behave differently than their foreign counterparts. We know that they murder each other more often. We know that they work longer hours and are more stressed. They smoke less. Do they drive better or worse? Are they more or less promiscuous? Dunno. In any event, it's hard to tell how much of a factor those behaviors would be. Assuming that he's correct, though, that the critical difference is coverage, then why aren't we taking a straight line to getting universal coverage? And why are we making changes that would damage our best-in-the-world health care?

To: Road Walker who wrote (11068)	11/5/2009 10:24:28 AM
From: gg cox	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Chuckle chort.. Moreover, there is one American health statistic that is strikingly above average: life expectancy for Americans who have already reached the age of 65. At that point, they can expect to live longer than the average in industrialized countries. That’s because Americans above age 65 actually have universal health care coverage: Medicare. Suddenly, a diverse population with pockets of poverty is no longer such a drawback. Socialism ! hack!! But then one must remember history "in tough FD Roosevelt times... en.wikipedia.org Working in unison, supported by the,.. Cough, choke GOVERNMENT like so many Mao_Zedong high steppers.. en.wikipedia.org lol

To: Road Walker who wrote (11068)	11/16/2009 1:18:19 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

The WHO's rankings you very poor methodology, if your aim is to actually rank the quality of health care in different countries, as I've demonstrated in many posts on this thread and elsewhere. A significant portion of their rankings (I think 2/3rds, I could look it up if you want, or you could find it in other posts I've made) are not about health quality at all but health equality (where improving quality for those who already have the best quality, would lower the score), or about other issues besides health care quality. Then there measurements for health care quality itself, are based off of measurements of results that are determined by many things besides the health care or health insurance setup in a country.