Responsiveness is not a measure of quickness.


Responsiveness includes two major components. These are (a) respect for persons (including dignity, confidentiality and autonomy of individuals and families to decide about their own health); and (b) client orientation (including prompt attention, access to social support networks during care, quality of basic amenities and choice of provider).

I will provide a better rebuttal once I'm done raiding in WoW.

It's the only actual quality of work listed in the report Akuma.

There is nothing in the report that actually guages how well the doctors perform or how well treatment is done.

As for the GDP, as has already been discussed... that's more a problem of the US socialism... making it more socialized would make this number go higher... not lower.

PWNED only if you don't know how they compute the rankings.  Check out this article to see how they really come up with this stuff.  I'm sure most of us who are familiar with U.N. machinations will not be shocked.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9259

Basically what i've been saying.

Who would have thunk it?  Where was that guy talking about how the only reason the WHO doesn't do this survey anymore is because it 'costs' too much.   Right. 

You know, the 18% of people that do not have healthcare in the US roughly equates to the entire population of the UK or France or 3x the population of Australia being left vulnerable.

You mean the 18% that get taken care of for free every time they enter the hospital?

How are they vulnerable?

Alright now that I have some time.

First off, Cato is a think tank that's always been against anything more socialistic. As much as they don't want to be labeled conservatives, that's exactly what they are. I bet you I can find some article from some liberal group that praises and maybe even rebutts Cato's claims. Anyhow on to the rebuttal.

For the Financial Fairness, yes we already addressed this. What's the point of having great healthcare if only a few people are able to pay for it? Or even worse, if they do get treated the poorer are only put under much greater strain under depth, causing long-term stress, and so on and so forth. Ultimately the poorer end up with debt, chronic stress, and overall they end up a lot worse situation than the rich after the treatment. It's a thoroughly valid statistic.

The answer to his distribution of Health in the Population, actually lies in the report summary itself:

" It is not sufficient to protect or improve the average health of the population, if - at the same time - inequality worsens or remains high because the gain accrues disproportionately to those already enjoying better health. The health system also has the responsibility to try to reduce inequalities by prioritizing actions to improve the health of the worse-off, wherever these inequalities are caused by conditions amenable to intervention. The objective of good health is really twofold: the best attainable average level – goodness – and the smallest feasible differences among individuals and groups – fairness. A gain in either one of these, with no change in the other, constitutes an improvement."

And they are slamming DALE. Great to see they completely missed the fucking point on this report. This report ranks the Health Systems and how they work. It bassically states that if you give Costa Rica access to as much resources as the US does, then it would be a better place for people to get sick in. The simple fact that even before the adjusment the US is 15th is really sad, given the disaprity in the per capita cost.

Ok I think I covered all their reasons well enough.

@Rpruett

You still haven't even read the source, just some biased interpretation. Either put your money where your mouth is and stop being an idiot or gtfo of this thread.

That's not what Financial Fairness is Vlad.

I already mentioned this.... as did that report.

Financial Fairness has NOTHING to do with quality of treatment.

It's not a valid statistic.

While once again.  Health distribution is irrelevent if you don't account for factors outside of healthcare that are actually greater then healthcare when it comes to health.

The problem is what you think "better" is. To me, when I see a country ranking based on healthcare, I expect someone getting treated in a country ranked 10th, to get better treatment then someone in a country ranked 20th.

Using that statistic to rank countries, means this is not the case.