- NEW!
by Gene H on November 27th, 2009
by dumdum on November 27th, 2009
What is the number of nurse practitioners that a physician can supervise?
by Answerbag Staff on August 13th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Tonight I want to try to do__________with my girl friend in my room.
by lia8888 on April 29th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
Does Texas have its own peer review organization?
by Answerbag Staff on August 1st, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Who regulates medical software such as EMR& EHR?
by Answerbag Staff on July 26th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What is the CO2 laser?
by beautymachine on April 15th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Cost concerns unlikely to sink US healthcare refomr. So, if we do nothing about spiraling cost increases, does nobody have to pay for them? See LINK:
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
I certainly hope so.
by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 27th, 2009
Based on what do you measure that America has the WORST healthcare in the industrialized countries? America has the best survival rate of 13 of the 16 most common cancers. America has the best survival rate of all countries for traumatic injuries. Other than your agenda, on what do you conclude America's healthcare is teh WORST?
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on November 30th, 2009
It's based on life expectancy, deaths from preventable causes, deaths in childbirth and infant mortality. The problem is America has great medicine for those who are insured and can afford it, but we now have 47 million who have no insurance and millions more who are under insured.
by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 30th, 2009
OhLook -- statistics reflect that overall we are the worst. Infant mortality, for instance, shows that economic might Uganda has a better rate than us. We're the worst of the industrialized nations and rank 42nd overall. Not so good.
The money paid for the health care given is out of whack. Worst of all industrialized nations.
by Gene H on December 1st, 2009
Jim: You really should read the WHO report. The factors you cite are only 25% of the criteria used. The WHO ranks America #1 for responsiveness (i.e. an actual measure of quality of care), but that is only 12.5% of the score. The WHO report is mostly concerned with QUANTITY of coverage, NOT QUALITY of care.
…
And FYI: this is all explained in the actual report: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf.
...
Gene: You should read the report so you know what you are talking about. Quality of care is less than 25% of the overall score. Any country that gives healthcare to all of its citizens as equal cost will be ranked higher than U.S., even if that care is piss poor.
…
Moreover, factors like life expectancy and infant mortality rate have little to nothing to do with healthcare. These factors have more to do with lifestyle than healthcare. America has a lower life expectancy because we are the fattest industrialized country.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 1st, 2009
Can you check the URL for that pdf? I'm getting a 404 File not Found error from it.
by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on December 1st, 2009
The period got included in the link. Delete the period and it will come up.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 2nd, 2009
Babies aren't born fat. That's not what kills them. So their deaths have little to do with health care. All right, suppose I accept that. Why wouldn't we want to lower that rate? Why wouldn't we want health care for new mothers and infants? Why should we just accept that even undeveloped countries have lower infant death rates? Cost is a BIG part of the problem.
by Gene H on December 2nd, 2009
Gene: Unlike most people on this site, I have no agenda. I look at every issue from an objective viewpoint and make my determinations based on fact.
…
First, the infant mortality rate is a bad indicator of anything because it does not use a consistent criterion. Infant mortality is defined as a person who is born alive but dies within the first year of life. The WHO defines a live birth as any “born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat.” However, each country (and sometimes each state within a country) use a different definition. Since the WHO data comes from government sources, you are often comparing apples and oranges.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 2nd, 2009
For example, most countries will only attempt a live birth after 30-32 weeks gestation. Many states in the U.S., on the other hand, mandate that hospitals attempt a live birth at 22 weeks gestation. Regardless of the quality of healthcare, a child born at 22 weeks gestation has a slim chance of survival. In addition, America counts a child as born alive it shows any sign of life. Other countries only count a child as "born alive" if it is breathing, or has a heartbeat, or has brain activity, or all of the above.
…
With that said, “Why wouldn't we want to lower that rate?” There is nothing wrong with wanting to lower that rate. But having a government takeover of healthcare will not affect that rate. I am just trying to get people to be honest about the issues. America does not have a quality of care problem.
…
The point is this: if your goal is to improve infant mortality rates and life expectancy, the last thing you should do is regulate American healthcare. If you want to affect these stats, then you need to regulate lifestyles. Even people with excellent medical coverage are fat in America. This is not because their doctors are not encouraging them to lose weight. Rather, its because obesity is caused by lifestyle choices, not quality of care.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 2nd, 2009
See, to me the change would be good. AIG won't be richer than the world bank. The US will go from the least bang for the buck to the best bang for the buck. Define infant mortality however you like. We should have the lowest by any scale. Kids who aren't infants should already HAVE free health care, black or white or poor or rich. The old way isn't good enough. Now, if you guys have some ideas to make things work without universal health care, I'll listen, really I will. Any argument that says, "Why, the learnin's of mah deer old pappy is all ah need," I don't care to consider.
by Gene H on December 2nd, 2009
“The US will go from the least bang for the buck to the best bang for the buck.” This highlights one of the areas of contention. Some people would rather have higher quality of care than “bang for the buck.” Moreover, many people disagree (and for good reason) that a government run system would even provide more “bang for the buck.”
…
“We should have the lowest by any scale.” If you are not going to create a level playing field, this is impossible. And again, even if we all agree on this, the solution has nothing to do with America’s healthcare system.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 2nd, 2009
“Kids who aren't infants should already HAVE free health care, black or white or poor or rich.” Healthcare is never free. It would be great if healthcare grew on trees, but it doesn’t. Healthcare requires highly skilled labor and expensive equipment.
…
“Now, if you guys have some ideas to make things work without universal health care.” The problem with your viewpoint is you are assuming we need to change American healthcare without defining the problem. If you define the problem as “everyone should have healthcare provided by taxes,” then the only way to do that is to have a socialized system. If you define the problem as “the best quality of care,” then our system is already superior. If you define the problem as “we need to improve infant mortality and life expectancy stats,” then the solution has nothing to do with our healthcare system, and everything to do with regulating lifestyles and how we report stats.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 2nd, 2009
We need to change US health care, period. If you are afraid of the cost, consider that you, too, will not be denied. As for 'bang for the buck', the expression MEANS higher health care.
Look, insurance companies, medical companies, doctors, hospitals -- the lot of them have been squeezing us with fear for decades. Let em. Let them earn their money. Take fear out of the equation and you have universal health care. And they still get paid. And you don't have to die.
by Gene H on December 2nd, 2009
“We need to change US health care, period.” This is an ideological viewpoint that many people agree with, and that many people disagree with. But you are only going to get people who disagree with this viewpoint to agree if you can establish a logical reason to change our healthcare system.
…
I am not afraid of the cost of healthcare. I like the fact that I can get the best quality of care. I like the fact that I can get treated even if my chance of survival is small.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 2nd, 2009
“And they still get paid.” Who still gets paid? We already have a doctor shortage in America. If we are going to expand healthcare coverage without lowering quality of care, then we need more doctors. How are we going to convince more people to incur a half a million dollars of debt and spend 8-16 years of their life training to be a doctor by limiting their pay even more?
…
“And you don't have to die.” Ah, this is the best part about America’s healthcare system. My chance of survival if far greater in America than all other countries.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 2nd, 2009
Oh. I guess you're right. I guess we shouldn't change anything. I give. You win. Can't improve anything. Forget it. I'm on your side.
by Gene H on December 2nd, 2009
Do you really think being facetious is productive or in any way strengthens your viewpoint? I never said that nothing should be changed. What I said is you have to define your goals before you can decide what, if anything, should be changed.
…
Again, if your focus is quality of care, than America already ranks number one, so why change anything? If your focus is merely on infant mortality and life expectancy rates, then we can pass laws to regulate lifestyles, but there is no need to change our healthcare system. If your goal is to provide healthcare paid for by tax dollars, then you have to change the healthcare system.
…
You have to accurately define the problem before you can find a solution.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 2nd, 2009
No, I give up. You're right. I'm not very smart.
by Gene H on December 2nd, 2009
I am right about what? And I never said that you were not smart.
…
I am a believer that everyone should be objective and decide what they believe based on reason and fact. If you believe that the American healthcare system should be changed, there is nothing wrong with that so long as you have a factual basis for your belief.
…
For all of those people who think that we should have socialized healthcare because they believe their ideological viewpoint is that government should provide health care, then there is nothing to debate. That is a logical viewpoint (although not everyone will agree).
…
However, when you start making erroneous arguments like “America has the worst healthcare system of the industrialized world,” then you need actual facts to support your conclusion. People are not going to take your viewpoint seriously if you have to make up information to support your view.
by OhLook - IamNoLongerAnonymous on December 2nd, 2009