By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Healthcare isn't a business, it's peoples lives

Kasz216 on 26 April 2009

One correction. It's not the bottom 25%.

The bottom 20% are covered by Medicaid. Which despite being really expensive is good coverage in most states.


It's more a nightmare for people between 21% and 36%. Plus some people with higher incomes who feel health insurance isn't worth the cost or can't get healthcare.

The problems with the healthcare system aren't a factor for our poor mostly .

It's a factor for our lower middle class mostly... and largely a budgetary factor outside of those who just can't get insured.

Some minor law adjustements to account for price and everything should be fine honestly.



Around the Network
mrstickball on 26 April 2009

Way to go HS. Great opinion.

Lets fix our Healthcare system. It's broken, and socialization will do nothing but force more people to pay for something that's totally unaffordable.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Rpruett on 26 April 2009
vlad321 said:

 

 

@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.

 

I've read the source several times now.  I'm the first person in the thread to even mention the source and various aspects about it.  I've also been saying for pages that this study is clearly subjective, prone to bias, impossible to interpret and that's the driving reason WHY the World Health Organization has said it's "Too Complex"  to derive rankings anymore.   

Want to know why it's "Too Complex" ?   Putting in a ranking system with their criteria like they have is so incredibly statistically invalid it's amazing.  The fact that you fail acknowledge this is absolutely hilarious.  

Stick to what you know Francis, or what you think you know.

 



TheRealMafoo on 26 April 2009
akuma587 said:
fmc83 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
vlad321 said:

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 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. 

 

 

By your logic, North Korea has one of the best health care systems, because Kim Jong-Il will certainly get better treatment then some (if not all) of the people in the Number 1 country on the list.

 

Won't happen though, because this list shows the average of the people living in one country.

 

 

Exactly.  A theoretical healthcare system in which theoretical people receive treatment is totally meaningless.  It is highly relevant to look at what actually happens.

 

 

Your both missing the point. let's put it another way.

Let's say you traveled the world, and ranked treatment yourself. You had a scale of 1 to 100 as what the best experience in a hospital was. Let's say you were to go to Costa Rica, and of all the hospitals in the world, you ranked them at a 20 and everyone in that country got the same healthcare.

Now you come to the US, and the worst treatment (someone with no health insurance) you ranked as a 40, and the best medical care, you ranked as a 90.

The worst person in the US got twice a good of healthcare then the Costa Rican people, but on that list, Costa Rica will get a higher score because they all got the same shitty care.

That's not how it should work in my opinion.



akuma587 on 26 April 2009

That's kind of the reason why there are several factors on the list, so that no one factor throws off the balance.

Its like saying, "Man, this car has great seat belts! It must be the safest care ever!" But if it can't withstand a collision, it is not very safe. Gauging anything by just one factor gives you a bad idea of what the quality of that thing really is.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Kasz216 on 26 April 2009
akuma587 said:
That's kind of the reason why there are several factors on the list, so that no one factor throws off the balance.

Its like saying, "Man, this car has great seat belts! It must be the safest care ever!" But if it can't withstand a collision, it is not very safe. Gauging anything by just one factor gives you a bad idea of what the quality of that thing really is.

The problem is... the majority of the indicators they use are faulty.

I mean there is a reason why they don't do this anymore.

The list is nearly a decade old.



akuma587 on 26 April 2009

I'm more than happy to look at more recent data people have that compares our healthcare systems. I've got some:

 

Healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP:

Healthcare costs per capita:



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

fmc83 on 26 April 2009
TheRealMafoo said:

 

Your both missing the point. let's put it another way.

Let's say you traveled the world, and ranked treatment yourself. You had a scale of 1 to 100 as what the best experience in a hospital was. Let's say you were to go to Costa Rica, and of all the hospitals in the world, you ranked them at a 20 and everyone in that country got the same healthcare.

Now you come to the US, and the worst treatment (someone with no health insurance) you ranked as a 40, and the best medical care, you ranked as a 90.

The worst person in the US got twice a good of healthcare then the Costa Rican people, but on that list, Costa Rica will get a higher score because they all got the same shitty care.

That's not how it should work in my opinion.

 

In this very point you are right, but just if you assume, that everybody really gets that health care. If people don't, then I must ask you how you would wage every death, because of not getting the proper treatment needed for money reasons. If a serious illness is on the way to take your life and the 20% standard would safe you, your choice would be obvious.

 

By the way: I know not one country except for Cuba on that list, which doesn't have a private medical sector as well. So your assumption that everybody's getting the same treatment is wrong anyway.

 

@akuma:

I hope you'll tell us what each graph means in particular



http://nintendo-geheimtipps.blogspot.com

Kasz216 on 26 April 2009
akuma587 said:

I'm more than happy to look at more recent data people have that compares our healthcare systems. I've got some:

 

Healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP:

Healthcare costs per capita:

 

Which has already been established... largely a part of medicaid and medicare.

You keep going around in a circle here.

Socializing things and making things MORE expensive isn't going to help...

Other socialized programs cost less because they're in different countries.  I bet you'll find that level of socialization doesn't match up with costs perfectly.  Which if the logical fallacy you keep making here.



akuma587 on 26 April 2009

I heard a pretty good article on NPR today talking about something like this.  They were talking about a pretty good idea of having an independent commission (which can be defined in a lot of different ways) decide what procedures are necessary based on their effectiveness rather than having government officials or insurance companies make that decision.  I thought it was a pretty good idea, and a politically palatable one for most people.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103458129



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson