oh i dont know, I was just pointing out that one has to really digest the data, or stats, to better understand them. I dont think there is any particular stats that will clearly give you an answer. All we can do is analyze said stats and then critically think about them. It there a correlation or causation? i dont think short life expectancy necessarily means bad treatment/healthcare. i think lifestyles is directly proportional to general health. And i dont think the common denominator is only social healthcare, again. At least I dont think we can automatically assume that just yet. Lets look at some other aspects. again, lifestyles is where I would start.
Sorry, no good. We spend more 'per capita' in this country because THIS is the country where the lion's share of the research and improvement is done. THIS is the country where it is actually profitable to do so. Then, socialist regimes come along and co-opt the drugs, the research, and tax everyone they can to provide it to as many as they can. Fine for them, at least for the ones lucky enough to survive long enough to actually GET treatment, but without the system we have here, that wellspring of privatized profit-motive research dries up, and down the toilet it all goes. Also, the problems with these 'ratings' and 'rankings' of countries has a whole lot more to do with methodology than people think. In many of those countries, infant mortality rates are not counted the same way as they are here, hmm wonder why. Plus, since people actually have FREEDOM from socialism here, that includes the FREEDOM to make bad choices. Freedom is a double-edged sword, true enough. It means having to take and deal with the bad along with the good. But taking away freedom and putting socialism in its place is never a good solution. Always amusing how the people who most loudly praise socialism are the ones most dependent upon it. Just ask yourself why Canada has had to take the extraordinary step of criminalizing the act of attempting to obtain health care in the United States? If it's so great there, why do people risk fines and prison to come to get care from a 'worse' system? Again, our system is FAR from perfect - it is in dire need of reform. But the reform needed has more to do with where and how the money goes than with the actual care itself.
Wrong. The vast majority of the money that goes into research comes from the National Institute of Health which is funded by our tax dollars.
When I had to go see a specialist for my arthritis I had to wait THREE AND A HALF MONTHS to get in. Why? Because he was the ONLY doctor in the entire city of Austin who takes my health insurance (Aetna) and who was seeing new patients. And this same specialist that I'm stuck with is the reason I had to have both of my hips replaced at the ripe old age of 25 - because he didn't bother to realize that the meds I was on weren't helping my hip problems that had been progressively getting worse since I was 21. What did he do? Upped my doses - he didn't bother to do any research on why I was getting worse. And what could I do about it? Nothing! I can't afford to see a specialist without my insurance, and with my insurance I sure as hell couldn't switch doctors. GREAT healthcare system.
. that a good point. They also been notorious for extremely ineffecient in using said funds. Not to mention they have remained on the cutting edge mostly because most other countries after WW2 have been limited in what their military can actually do (either due to US limitiations on them, japan, or because their economies completely failed, like russia)
ouch. thats a series of F-ups. But principally, it appears to be a bad dr. more so than a bad system.
Uh, negative. She had zero options because of her insurance. She knew her doctor sucked yet had no alternative because of the system.
Except that care spending doesn't correspond to research spending. The study below cites extensive preventive care as one of the main reasons for lower spending in countries with UHC, while nothing is mentioned about research. http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php No medical research takes place in countries with UHC! [qite]Fine for them, at least for the ones lucky enough to survive long enough to actually GET treatment, but without the system we have here, that wellspring of privatized profit-motive research dries up, and down the toilet it all goes.[/quote] You make it sound as if those who need emergency care to survive can only get it if they're "lucky," when it's arguably not the case, as evidenced by the higher life expectancies. STATISTICAL CONSPIRACY THE EVIL SOCIALISM BOOGEYMAN You can rant and rave all you want about SOCIALISM, but in this case the evil anti-freedom socialist health care systems perform better, both in providing care and lower costs. Not only that, but government healthcare spending in the US is higher than in countries with universal systems, so other countries actually spend less tax money on health care than we do: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/12/30/business/31view.L.jpg Cite? I know that private clinics are illegal in Canada, but I haven't heard anything about medical tourism being illegal. And it's been shown that UHC spends that money more efficiently than the US system, with better results.
This isn't directed specifically at you, DonkeyMagic, but it needs saying. Isn't what this whole debate is about? A bad doctor who somehow exemplified the entire socialized healthcare system? hmmm.... Funny how it's just a bad doctor here in the US, but over in England, it's a bad system?
