vlad321 said:
Rpruett said:
vlad321 said:
Rpruett said:
vlad321 said:
In the end, there are more people getting better healthcare, while more people live further away from cities in Europe than the US using socialitic methodology.
Very subjective with no current evidence to support. More people live further away from cities in America than any population of ANY individual European country.
Not to mention for cheaper. I'm also very well aware where the money comes from, but the study on cost accounts for taxes going to the healthcare, and currently the US is in 2nd and yet has such mediocre score on the quality overall. Also please tell me what these geographical circumstances the US elderly face that the ones in Europe don't. Outside of deserts (where a very minor amount of people live in the US anyhow) Europe has everything.
Europe simply isn't as large. Not by a long shot. Europeans live more compact lifestyles because of this.
By difficult they meant that it costs too much to do a fair, unbiased measure. Do you HONESTLY believe that the people tasked with the study didn't include americans as well that may just have bitched and maybe even skewed the results so the US would actually appear higher than it should be?
No. I believe that they did this study and realized the fatal flaws in calculating it. Which is why they won't do it again. It's a sham and they know it. For some of the reasons I listed above, this study is impossible to quantify accurately. There are far too many variables.
|
|
Directly quoted from the source:
"The WHO study finds that it isn’t just how much you invest in total, or where you put facilities geographically, that matters. It’s the balance among inputs that counts – for example, you have to have the right number of nurses per doctor."
Please read, and put your childish argument of "not valid" to rest, it's plenty valid, and quite thorough, and it just shows your system doesn't work:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html
They also have the full report all the way at the bottom.
Edit: It's under the historical reports, 2000. You can view the full text online, it's quite interesting actually.
|
There's a reason they don't conduct the study anymore. Subjectivity is one of those reasons.
|
It's as if you didn't read it at all. They adjusted things overall, and the worst crime they did was ask customer satisfaction. Given their data and everything they went throguh and most iportantly, the scope. I can't imagine this being cheap at all hence the reason. If you think it's not valid that's your personal problem, it's quite valid in many points. It's not even metastudy like tat one Happiness study they did. This is hard data adjusted for well being of a nation. The US wastes more money per capita for lesser quality of service. Simple as that, it's a broken system. What else do you want for change to occur?
|
Quality of service is by the very definition subjective from person to person. Personal preference will guide your quality of service in many scenarios. Keep trying to convince yourself that it's a broken system. The only system that has categorically been proven a broken system is Socialization of things.
