sv3n

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out? I think you mis interpeted this post. I think the US has screwed things up so bad it has moved itself to a ranking of 37. To make it right (fix it) the US would move lower in the ranking. In other words, the lower the ranking in this study the better Interesting thought. What changes would you suggest to fix the problem and how would that lower the score? I am not sure what you think needs fixed but I can suggest 3 things that would help to lower the cost. First, pass a federal law that stops states from mandating what has to be insured. The hodge podge of differing laws do not allow insurance compaines to consolidate for large groups of people driving up the cost. Not to mention stupid laws that say insurance must cover breast implants and adadictome"s. Second, tort reform. Limits do not have to be set but Looser pay states have seen large decreases in cases. You loose the case, you pay the other lawyer. That would help stop many ambulanc chasers. Third, health saving accounts. Need to go, pay for it out of your account. don't have to go the money stays with you to help you buy (then now less costly) health insurance at retirement. ....to name the top three I can't say I disagree with you on 1 and 2........they need a national standard so the same laws are in affect for everybody. And the "loser pays court costs and lawyer fees", that's an awesome idea........i think it's way under enforced. Anytime you get sued, if the person can't prove or has no case they should be responsible for the court and lawyer fees. 3, the health savings account............I'm not sure on this one. Just because if you have a low income due to social status, education, so on and so on........you're not really covered. You only make so much, you can only afford so much. It would essentially say that the rich can afford good healthcare while joe schmoe down at the gas station would be screwed if he got really sick with something like cancer. But there's gotta be some way around that. Good ideas. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out? Very simplified, the rating put quantity ahead of quality and placed universal or "free", (so to speak) access as its 1 priority. Basicly, the closer to socialistic operation the higher the ranking Could that be determining wether a government is running it's healthcare program efficiently and making is accessible to the entire population? ...and you're in violation of your face!

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out? I think you mis interpeted this post. I think the US has screwed things up so bad it has moved itself to a ranking of 37. To make it right (fix it) the US would move lower in the ranking. In other words, the lower the ranking in this study the better Interesting thought. What changes would you suggest to fix the problem and how would that lower the score? ...and you're in violation of your face!

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out? ...and you're in violation of your face!

When you start a world health organization to monitor and rank healthcare around the world, then I'll take what you have to say on the subject seriously. According to research done by the World Health Organization France was ranked number 1........if you choose to ignore it that's your problem. Personally it doesn't really seem like they're too far off on the goals of healthcare for everybody, they might not fit in well in a system designed to not cover everybody......but that's not what I believe it right. As far as the higher insurance rate and doctor salaries...........I haven't ignored them. Insurance wouldn't be an issue. If you have a government run healthcare there wouldn't be insurance..........it would be through the government. Regulating healthcare costs obviously would include salaries of people in the healthcare profession. Now before you get your panties in a bunch......I'm not saying have doctors and nurses make $2 per hour. I'm saying fair wages regulated by a panel of doctors and budget officials...............that way the doctor's are represented and the people planning the budget are there to make sure things are fair. This is all stuff I stated before.........it just doesn't seem like you're listening. No, can't say that I've lived in France......been there a couple of times, but never lived there. You ever live there? I'm assuming no. So by your argument, I have a report by the World Health Organization that I'm following and you are following no report by anybody......just simply "I can't believe it, it can't be true". Nice, did you want some earplugs so you can free up your fingers? I'm not sure where you get this $2/hour junk..........over exaggerating stuff isn't great for debates...........usually it proves that you have no argument. And finally............hey you said it was a silly childish idea for the government to promote healthy living...........that's a report for the President's Cancer Panel (like the president of the us of a), obviously it wasn't that silly or childish...........they must have some sort of authority on the subject. I didn't write the article..............just showing you it isn't some sort of wild fantasy idea. If you have problems with the report, then take it up with the President's Cancer Panel. Show 'em who's the boss tiger. I don't think I can put it any more plain than that.........peace out. Good luck with your quest........watch out for that tree. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Good article. ...and you're in violation of your face!

See my first post: 1) End-of-life care - EXPENSIVE. 2) Drugs - Expensive 3) Variance in population creating more diversity of medical problems. Now, how do we solve these problems? Solving them through leaving people uncovered is not right. You are right that end of life care is expensive, but I think our elders deserve better than "so gramps, get your ass out on the street" they helped build this country and many have faught for this country. Drugs are expensive, but since our drug costs are higher than anywhere else in the world....one would assume you would take a look to see if things are "inflated" by the companies and deal with that appropriately. People need the medications and if they're cheaper elsewhere why are the not as cheap here. Your theory on closing the borders to alleviate the diverse problems that we have because of the diverse population that already lives here is inane and pointless. Those people already live here.......closing the border will have no direct impact on the different number of medical conditions in this country. Okay. So what do we do about it, for God's sake? All I've heard from you is "That won't work. That won't be nice." I've just simple had it with people who shoot down everything without a solution. WHAT DO WE DO TO STAVE OFF END OF LIFE HEALTH COSTS? Because from what I'm gathering from you it cannot be done without shocking your conscience. Ideas. Let me hear them. Because this is the ONLY way that I can think of. I've given you ideas. Such as: Regulate Costs to a decent level.....that would cut end of life care expenses in half. That would be a pretty hefty chunk. Get a percentage of the military budget and spend it on healthcare............we don't need $200 hammers or $500 toilet seats. Like we need to spend $2 billion on the developement of a new jet fighter when we have more advanced stuff than anybody else and more than enough to last a decade. There's another hefty chunk. Take all the money currently spent on healthcare in this country and put it toward one unified system......that's $1.9 trillion dollars. With all that funding you should be able to buy a lot of healthcare and you'll probably have a lot of excess as well. ...and you're in violation of your face!

dead link...........it asks for login info. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Interesting, are they promoting it or just defining it? ...and you're in violation of your face!

He said they needed more revenue.............he also said he didn't want to raise taxes.........he also said that the entitlement programs need reform......notices he said reform, not cuts. So you could reform the program to be more efficient, you could cut costs, and the final results would be more revenue. Then you are ignoring the parts you disagree with. He says there's no option but to each of 1- increasing taxes 2- cutting costs 3- cutting benefits Nobody is saying that costs aren't too high, because they plainly are. Reducing costs in a vacuum, if that were possible (it isn't, reducing costs inexorably mean reducing benefits), the effect of reducing costs isn't enough. The benefits have to come down. Since you missed it in the first reading, the same point is made again by the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, which was briefed by the Comptroller. (edit with clarification on the quote) ...and you're in violation of your face!

I don't believe in income tax, it was setup as a temporary entity and then just got moved to the permanent column. A flat sales tax would be more appropriate, especially in a capitalis society......the more you buy the more taxes you pay. But that's another debate. You feel that way about income taxes too? Everybody pay the same amount? People lose me when they use subjective words like "fair". ...and you're in violation of your face!

That could be one part of it, then again one could say that it was to make sure everybody is paying the same amount, like paying their fair share. I thought that was so obvious, that they all gave up on it once it was brought to light. Nevertheless, that's a very good summary of that study. THANKS ...and you're in violation of your face!

Again, you're only reading what you want to - Richard's post immediately below your FIRST post in the thread talks about they are having problems paying for care in Canada. Yes, this is solid proof and you're right. Does this say anything about having trouble paying for care in Canada? ---------->"Nationalized health care would not be as good as we have today. You can not come up with one example where a gov runs something better than the private sector. Canada, the UK and many others are not as good as we have today." ----------> Didn't think so. where? I don't think you can deny that in the US we pay $5,300 per person per year on healthcare and that in France they pay $2,800 of which $2,100 is paid by the government. That's about half of what we pay and less than half for the government. he has shown that emergency room "ow I broke my leg" treatment is available..........but were one to get sick from things such as cancer and could not afford insurance, then you would get no coverage. Thereby, making your US cancer stats pointless as it doesn't apply to the whole population and only to the well-off. Does this really show rationing? Or being denied on Arbitrary standard? -------->"Is this like that saw about "Socialism has never worked because the right people haven't been in charge"? Here's some tidbits about socialized medicine: * Breast cancer is fatal to 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain and New Zealand, both socialized-medicine havens, breast cancer kills 46 percent of women it strikes. * Prostate cancer proves fatal to 19 percent of its American sufferers. In single-payer Canada, the National Center for Policy Analysis reports, this ailment kills 25 percent of such men and eradicates 57 percent of their British counterparts. * After major surgery, a 2003 British study found, 2.5 percent of American patients died in hospital versus nearly 10 percent of similar Britons. Seriously ill US hospital patients die at one-seventh the pace of those in the U.K. * “In usual circumstances, people over age 75 should not be accepted” for treatment of end-state renal failure, according to New Zealand’s official guidelines. Unfortunately, for older Kiwis, government controls kidney dialysis. * According to a Populus survey, 98 percent of Britons want to reduce the time between diagnosis and treatment. Add to all this the fact that, once government has control of it, *THEY* (as in gov't) will decide what is 'needful' and what isn't. There's already plenty of evidence out there about care being rationed in SHC countries. " ----------------------> While we're at the top of the game on cancer treatment, it doesn't apply to those that are not wealthy enough to afford insurance. You can cherry-pick all the stats you want, but for instance colon cancer.........japan is slightly ahead of the US on that (link: http://coloncancer.about.com/od/stagesandsurvivalrate1/a/CCSurvivalCount.htm) and guess what they have government run healthcare, so it's possible to have government run healthcare and and not have a bad cancer survival rate. So 98 percent of the UK wants to have the immediacy of treatment and diagnosis improved...........but we have the same problem in the US (link: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042072.htm). Also there's a big call for change by the american people when the healthcare system is concerned........"90 percent of Americans say the health care system as a whole needs change -- 54 percent say "fundamental change" is necessary, and 36 percent say the system should be "completely (rebuilt)." Just 8 percent believe the system needs "minor changes."" We can't control New Zealand healthcare guidelines, however arbitrary they may be, but we can take hold of our own. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Sorry....the data used for the study isn't a decade old, it's 8 to 12 years old since the data was from 95 to 99. It didn't say anything in the article about people coming to the US for diagnosis and treatment. ...and you're in violation of your face!

You weren't flogging molly were you? Thanks. Those two rate about equally as things I'd like to experience Cute........just make sure you have healthcare incase a limb spontaneously combusts. Burn my palm all the time ...and you're in violation of your face!

I appreciate the info, but that info is a decade old and the article even says that things have improved and are still improving. I also have not said that we should copy the UK's healthcare system. Wait, you start your argument with "Ouch...this is gonna leave a mark." like it's some sort of nail in the coffin for government run healthcare. And then when I note that it only regards one country, not all countries with government run healthcare, then it's quibbling about technicalities? It's fact......the article even states that other countries with government run healthcare were above the UK and the top country on the list also has government run healthcare. So it's not that government run healthcare is bad......it just states that a decade ago the UK had problems diagnosing cancer earlier. Take the following facts: Mike's ford is white Bob's ford is blue Your Logic: all fords are white My Logic: while there may be other white fords, all fords are not white as Bob's is blue ...and you're in violation of your face!

that looks like a failed parkour attempt...............here's a not so failed parkour attempt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jquXcwooV6A&mode=related&search= and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrc_hb9q-fM ...and you're in violation of your face!

Thanks. Those two rate about equally as things I'd like to experience Cute........just make sure you have healthcare incase a limb spontaneously combusts. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Ok, so how is the following statement logically sound.............the uk had a problem from '95 to '99 in diagnosing cancer and has socialized medicine, sweden which has socialized medicine was on the exact opposite end of the spectrum, other countries with socialized healthcare did also not have problems, therefore socialized medicine has a problem diagnosing cancer. That's not proof, that's one case. In a logical argument you lose. ...and you're in violation of your face!

Yes, their idea is stated very clearly. I don't have a way to convert pdf's to text, so i will grab a screenshot or two and post as jpg's. In the meantime, here is the entire report, including the statistical annexes. Look at the Director's Message and Chapter 1 for the stuff I'm talking about. http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/index.html If you want a fair and balanced report, the UN or WHO is the last place to look. I already told you that the "fairness" critera can allow ZERO healthcare and 100% of income to be used and still get a perfect score, and you still say that the criteria assures that everybody can afford care. Distributing costs evenly has nothing to do with making HC affordable to everyone. You think costs are distributed evenly in the US right now? No way. If the United Nations or the World Health Organization aren't good places to look for a non-biased, accurate healtcare report.......where would one look? Any private company could easily be stated as being biased or inaccurate. You're right, forgot about the 0 or 100 percent thing.....was more concentrating on the everybody pays the same percentage thing. And no, I don't think that costs are distributed evenly in the US, neither are benefits. ...and you're in violation of your face!

And - What does "SHC" mean? Either he means Spontaneous Human Combustion or Socialized HealthCare......or he might mean something completely different all together. ...and you're in violation of your face!

I'm not saying there are not some countries out there that have problems catching cancer earlier and in this case it happens to be a country that has government run healthcare, but it's not sound logic. It doesn't add up.....1 out of however many countries that have government run healthcare has a problem catching cancer early, that doesn't mean that all countries that have government run healthcare have problems catching cancer early. Also think about all the uninsured people in the USA, that's just shy of 44 million people according to MSNBC (link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19416539/).......kind of hard without insurance unless you got a couple hundred thousand laying around to get cancer diagnosis and treatment. You accuse everyone else of not reading your info and having a closed mind - you've been given PLENTY of proof to show that SHC countries ration care and you're refusing to look at it or even admit it exists. ...and you're in violation of your face!

No. The would be no drugs to sell. P.S. I supposed you have to be 18 to register on dz.com, but it looks like it is not true. Have you no compassion? ...and you're in violation of your face!

I wonder what their idea of a viable healthcare system is, is that stated anywhere like in a mission statement? I bet it's a ton of data, I'm sure they didn't just call the government health office and say "on a scale of 1 to 10 how do you rate your healthcare system"....."well it's 10 because they said so". At least I would hope not. I appreciate you reading that and letting all of us know..........what a pain in the ass. I wish someone would just come out with a report that no one could argue about and then that way we could see where we're really at. I don't think their choice to put Fairness in Pricing in there is a bad thing......while 25% may be a little high, I could see why they would do it. It's a good way to see if everybody is paying equally and that it's fair for everybody so that everybody can afford healthcare. No, they didn't do surveys, WHO developed the criteria based on their idea of a viable healthcare system. I'd paste in a quote, but all I have are pdf's. I'll post something later. The reason I posted that was a response to the "France is #1, US is #37" BS that I keep hearing from people that have no idea how the ranking was done (I don't mean you). Re: Other tweaks. I'm still fiddling with it. It takes a while because tou have to recalculate a shitload of data so you don't leave a country out. Yes, I could tweak things and give you any result you want. A guy I know used to say this about statistics: "Figures never lie, but liars sure can figure". When I post tweaked rankings, I will always show exactly what the tweaks are. Also, no tweaks will involve tweaking data, just criteria and/or their weightings. ...and you're in violation of your face!

The guy isn't saying to cut off Medicare or Medicaid and just let old people die.........he's saying we need to re-evaluate our system and make some changes or replace it because our current system is going to bankrupt us. And he also doesn't say that there are no options but to cut people off. Here's some stuff from the article..... ...and you're in violation of your face!