We're Number 37!!!!

[lazarus]

[Woody]

Well ... that ain't bad. We don't always have to be number one.

[lazarus]

2, 7, 15,21........but 37!!!! Come on dude!

[Woody]

Laz ... Honestly ... I don't trust much of anything that comes out of the WHO. It's kinda like you and your distrust of Fox News.

[lazarus]

I expected that response. If they said we were number one of course you would trust it!

[Woody]

My record has been consistent with Anti-WHO.

[lazarus]

On what basis do you reject their assessment of US health care?

[there buster]

Quote:

First, the ranking is largely out of date. The source is The World Health Report 2000 of the World Health Organization. Moreover, while the WHO is a well respected health organization, the "ranking" is not what the critics would have you think it is.

The WHO "rank" is not a simple rank of absolute values such as the results of a race, where someone came in first with a time of X, someone second, and so on. It is a composite rank which weights "fairness" and "efficiency" more heavily than absolute levels of health or health care quality.

One stage of the WHO's cumulative ranking process ("Overall Goal Attainment") was based mostly (63 percent) upon "fairness" i.e. equality with respect to health status and as to the burden of paying for the health care system.

To illustrate, let's use a simple

1-to-10 scale. Under the WHO's "fairness" weighting approach, a nation whose measure for health or health care ranged from say 3 for its least advantaged citizens to 4 for its most advantaged would outrank a nation whose measures ranged from 6 to 10. Never mind that the least advantaged citizens in the

lower-ranked nation enjoyed far better health status/care (a rating of 6) than the most advantaged in the higher-ranked nation (a rating of 4).

So, under the WHO ranking system, equality trumps quality: uniformly bad trumps unevenly good.

In its final stages, the WHO ranking process penalized the U.S. for inefficiency and enormous health care expenditures. It utilized a "ratio between achieved levels of health and the levels of health that could be achieved by the most efficient health system" and "a similar process relating overall health system achievement to health systems expenditure."

Inefficiency and over-spending are different from the health of our citizenry or the quality of our health care.

So, denigrating American health care by saying the world's most advanced and wealthiest nation should do better than 37th constitutes double jeopardy: Our wealth, as reflected in our health care expenditures, is already incorporated in the ranking, so to criticize the U.S. for a poor ranking unbefitting of a country with our wealth is to double count.

Now, how did the U.S. rank on actual health and health care metrics? Of the eight measures in the WHO ranking, there were only two absolute measures: first, disability-adjusted life expectancy at birth -- i.e. years lived in good health; and second, responsiveness of the health care system.

The U.S. ranked 24th on the life expectancy measure, a mediocre showing -- but perhaps not so bad considering who outranked us: only six countries with populations of more 30 million (about one-tenth our population) and only one (Japan) with more than 100 million.

On responsiveness, the U.S. ranked number one. The WHO defines responsiveness as dignity, autonomy, confidentiality, prompt attention, quality of basic amenities, access to social support networks during care and choice of care provider. Number one on these attributes sure sounds like a high-functioning health care system.

So, when the critics, informed or not, sincere or not, attack U.S. health care with that damning "fact" of our abysmal 37th ranking, set them straight. Tell them that the ranking is not a measure of health or health care quality. Tell them that their usual formulation -- we are the wealthiest and yet we only ranked a horrid 37th -- constitutes double jeopardy.

When they ask why we can't achieve their holy grail -- a nationalized health care system -- which they imply would automatically and immediately elevate our dismal 37th ranking, you might point out that Canada, which has nationalized health care, placed only 30th in the WHO ranking.

Summary: the WHO document is a political statement, not an evaluation of actual health care.

Instead, it compares actual health care to some imaginary 'perfect' system.

[Woody]

The WHO is mostly corrupt and political. And 'who' wants to have the UN influence ANYthing. The UN is one of the most corrupt and ineffective inventions of mankind.

[Zeta]

You're right Redwood, and we can't blame that on Obama(smile).

[Woody]

Ah Shucks. But I can try.

[phkrause]

Yes but the number 1 HC which is France is also nationalized. And britian and germany and few others from europe that have nationalized plans are all ahead of us. We can spin all these things anyway we want. But for a country that is suppose to be the richest and we are 37th, that's pathetic wouldn't you say. And even if this video is old and we are now 30th or even 20th that's still a shame that we are not number ONE. We should be at least in the top 5 or at least better than all the countries that we continue to say are in trouble, like canada, france, germany, england, etc., because they are all ahead of us, that's sick to me.

pk

[Ted Oplinger]

On what basis do you reject their assessment of US health care?

That WHO is filled with anti-American sentiment, and as such an organization, can be counted on to spin numbers to put the US in as bad of light as possible. I read the report, Lazarus. They have a "nice" way to parse the dollar per capita to publish this piece of, oh, what's the nice word? Propaganda?

Again, if US health care is THAT bad, why is it all those WHO bureaucrats (and every other foreign dignitary who dislkes the US) keep flying here to get the best medical care they can?

[phkrause]

Ted that's true, because we have the best doctors and the best institutions, who wouldn't want to come here. But they come here and pay through the nose, its not free. Its our health care system that sucks. Where paying more and more for less and less and that in itself doesn't mean that its right or wrong. Our health care has been needing to be fixed for what 50 years or so? And on one wants to fix it because as long as the government is taken care of, what do they care?

pk

[bonnie]

Ted that's true, because we have the best doctors and the best institutions, who wouldn't want to come here. But they come here and pay through the nose, its not free. Its our health care system that sucks. Where paying more and more for less and less and that in itself doesn't mean that its right or wrong. Our health care has been needing to be fixed for what 50 years or so? And on one wants to fix it because as long as the government is taken care of, what do they care?

pk

Paying thru the nose is not always what happens. Mayo is one of the most reasonable priced medical facilities available.

Abbot North Western is another top rate hospital that cares for many from other countries at very reasonable rates.

Obama claims to want competition. That is available with very little effort.

Let insurance companies compete across state lines.

There are roughly 1700 insurance companies of all kinds.

MN has federal mandates required that number 61 I think it was.

I don't need pregnancy coverage,drug rehab and many of the other amenities they provide. Some states have as little as 4-6 mandates. Who do you think will get the cheaper rate.

But that leaves Obama and friends not have the reins of power.

Don't demand insurance coverage that pays every time you say Hi to your DR.

It can be brought down but why should they if they can get universal health care and the power that goes with it

[Tom Wetmore]

If our healthcare system is so great why are we so fat?

[bonnie]

If our healthcare system is so great why are we so fat?

Because your health care provider is not your nanny.

People are to fat because they eat to much or to much of the wrong foods.

[Woody]

If our healthcare system is so great why are we so fat?

Oh. And Obama is going to force a diet on all Americans over 150 pounds?

[Neil D]

Obama doesnt have to....

There are insurances currently who will NOT pay for battered women...battered by the husbands or boyfriends that they are with....And the reason for this refusal to pay for battered women...It's a "pre-existing condition"......

No, if the health care package doesn't go thru, your insurance will limit it for you...And they will do it because the republicans supported that type of health care....

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

If our healthcare system is so great why are we so fat?

Because your health care provider is not your nanny.

People are to fat because they eat to much or to much of the wrong foods.

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Oh. And Obama is going to force a diet on all Americans over 150 pounds?

So, are you saying obesity is not a health issue? That more than 2/3 of American adults are overweight doesn't impact healthcare in America? That eating too much or the wrong foods shouldn't be a part of the health message, because those who deliver a healthy lifestyle message should just butt out because they aren't your nanny? (Adventist heresy, I think...)

Here is the problem. Preventative healthcare, i.e., teaching and facilitate health lifestyle and choices, reduces healthcare costs. It is simply. Healthier people need less costly healthcare. Healthy people don't generate much revenue for the healthcare system. And the US healthcare system is a profit driven system. So from a healthcare deliver perspective there is no profit in preventative healthcare. And fat people feed the system, because they have more health problems thereby increasing healthcare profits.

We are #37, fat, dumb and apparently quite happy to stay that way...

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

If our healthcare system is so great why are we so fat?

Oh. And Obama is going to force a diet on all Americans over 150 pounds?

A little correction:)))) The force comes in with taxes. If it has a name and you can pronounce it it will be included.

[bonnie]

Quote:

So, are you saying obesity is not a health issue? That more than 2/3 of American adults are overweight doesn't impact healthcare in America? That eating too much or the wrong foods shouldn't be a part of the health message, because those who deliver a healthy lifestyle message should just butt out because they aren't your nanny? (Adventist heresy, I think...)

No I didn't say that. Most people that eat to much don't have to be told. They also know that they are putting their health at risk. What I eat and how frequently I do so is not the business of the federal government,you,or anyone else on this board. Yes,if the attempt is to control what I eat,what I weigh etc.

The health message in the secular world has been around a long time,really hasn't made a dent.

Deliver all the health messages you want. Just don't cram it down my throat.

Quote:

Here is the problem. Preventative healthcare, i.e., teaching and facilitate health lifestyle and choices, reduces healthcare costs. It is simply. Healthier people need less costly healthcare. Healthy people don't generate much revenue for the healthcare system. And the US healthcare system is a profit driven system. So from a healthcare deliver perspective there is no profit in preventative healthcare. And fat people feed the system, because they have more health problems thereby increasing healthcare profits.

I think it was the CBO that point blank said preventive medicine would cost more not less.

,No,fat people need to pay a premium that accounts for their at risk lifestyle

Quote:

We are #37, fat, dumb and apparently quite happy to stay that way...

No "we" are not fat. Not sure who in your wisdom is being referred to as dumb.

If a obese person is happy that way,it isn't my business.

[bonnie]

CBO says no savings with Preventative medicine

http://www.azstarnet.com/altds/pastframe/opinion/304808

In the 48 hours of June 15-16, President Obama lost the health-care debate. First, a letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Sen. Edward Kennedy reported that his health committee's reform bill would add $1 trillion in debt over the next decade. Then the CBO reported that the other Senate bill, being written by the Finance Committee, would add $1.6 trillion.

The central contradiction of Obamacare was fatally exposed: From his first address to Congress, Obama insisted on the dire need for restructuring the health care system because out-of-control costs were bankrupting the Treasury and wrecking the U.S. economy — yet the Democrats' plans would make the problem worse.

Accordingly, Democrats have trotted out various tax proposals to close the gap. Obama's idea of limits on charitable and mortgage-interest deductions went nowhere. As did the House's income-tax surcharge on millionaires. And Obama dare not tax employer-provided health insurance because of his campaign pledge of no middle-class tax hikes.

Desperation time. What do you do? Sprinkle fairy dust on every health-care plan, and present your deus ex machina: prevention.

Free mammograms and diabetes tests and checkups for all, promise Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, writing in USA Today. Prevention, they assure us, will not just make us healthier, it also "will save money."

Obama followed suit in his Tuesday New Hampshire town hall, touting prevention as amazingly dual-purpose: "It saves lives. It also saves money."

Because this seems so intuitive, it has become conventional wisdom. But like most conventional wisdom, it is wrong. Overall, preventive care increases medical costs.

This inconvenient truth comes, once again, from the CBO. In an Aug. 7 letter to Rep. Nathan Deal, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf writes: "Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness."

How can that be? If you prevent somebody from getting a heart attack, aren't you necessarily saving money? The fallacy here is confusing the individual with society. For the individual, catching something early generally reduces later spending for that condition. But, explains Elmendorf, we don't know in advance which patients are going to develop costly illnesses. To avert one case, "it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway."

Think of it this way. Assume that a screening test for disease X costs $500 and finding it early averts $10,000 of costly treatment at a later stage. Are you saving money? Well, if one in 10 of those who are screened tests positive, society is saving $5,000. But if only one in 100 would get that disease, society is shelling out $40,000 more than it would without the preventive care.

That's a hypothetical case. What's the real-life actuality in the United States today? A study in the journal Circulation found that for cardiovascular diseases and diabetes, "if all the recommended prevention activities were applied with 100 percent success," the prevention would cost almost 10 times as much as the savings, increasing the country's total medical bill by 162 percent. Elmendorf cites a definitive assessment in the New England Journal of Medicine that reviewed hundreds of studies on preventive care and found that more than 80 percent of preventive measures added to medical costs.

This doesn't mean we shouldn't be preventing illness. Of course we should. But the idea that prevention is somehow intrinsically economically different from treatment — that treatment increases costs and prevention lowers them — is simply nonsense.

Prevention is a wondrous good, but in the aggregate it costs society money. Nothing wrong with that. That's the whole premise of medicine: Treating a heart attack or setting a broken leg also costs society. But we do it because it alleviates human suffering. Preventing a heart attack with statins or breast cancer with mammograms is costly. But we do it because it reduces human suffering.

However, prevention is not, as so widely advertised, healing on the cheap. It is not the magic bullet for health-care costs.

You will hear some variation of that claim a hundred times in the coming health-care debate. Whenever you do, remember: It's nonsense — empirically demonstrable and CBO-certified.

[there buster]

Quote:

If our healthcare system is so great why are we so fat?

Right. By the same logic, if our God is so good, why are we still sinners?

[bonnie]

HEY ALL

OUR health care system works on the idea that we will

fix you if you are sick so they try to cure us from

our diseases the doctors do say they we the

people could do things to change our lives but

it is still our choice to stop or continue what we

are doing

the same principle is based on why so many sinners

most religious organization and christian churches

also have this same thinking well they say you should

not do certain things but it is up to you

so the choice is ours will we compromise or will

we follow GOD'S PLAN dgrimm60

Choice is our responsibility and that is the dirty little word people don't like.

If everything is a right our choices are made for us.

Onr thing I am waiting to hear is an explanation on the health care not paying for abortions.

Abortion is a right,health care is a right. So abortions should be included,shouldn't they