• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Wait...Who, How, When, What....???...I feel left out of the loop...

That 37 ranking is from the WHO report. Their rankings are heavily weighted by cost and distribution. Two factors that a universal system does do better. I don't think I would equate cheap cost and distribution to "quality" though. Give everyone a Yugo at a cheaper cost to all, that still doesn't make it better quality than a BMW. When my father needed a heart transplant I am glad we had the BMW and not a Yugo. Just my $.02. :shrugs:
 
You have to remember that Dale thinks that Fox is a farce and MSN is gospel.

And you'll have to show me where I've stated that. I acknowledge bias on both sides of the aisle. Olbermann can be just as guilty of hyperbole and fear-mongering as Beck.

So, let me know when you've found something I've said that reflects/corroborates your assertion.


Dale
 
I don't think I would equate cheap cost and distribution to "quality" though.

I bet you would if you were on of the many without health care now. I think that number 37 reflects the fact that for some Americans we may as well be number 100 for all the good the 'quality' does for them.
 
I wouldn't believe all the statistics about the US's health care rank honestly we may not be #1 on any scale, but definitely not number 37. You have to take into account how this rank is measured in the first place, quality of life vs. longevity, socioeconomic status, and lifestyle differences which make it nearly impossible to rank any country vs. another in the first place.

The ranking was last done in 2000, and the WHO (no, NOT Roger Daltrey, Pete Townshend, et al) has freely admitted - it's right there on the page linked - that they no longer perform this ranking because of many variables involved.

And the U.S. *IS* #1 in one particular category - the percentage of GDP going to the cost of health care. That said, you seem to think we have improved in some aspect since 2000 to move us up from that ranking. If so, in what aspects has health care improved in the U.S. over the past decade?

Dale
 
I bet you would if you were on of the many without health care now. I think that number 37 reflects the fact that for some Americans we may as well be number 100 for all the good the 'quality' does for them.
Good point something is better than nothing. But I still wouldn't equate that survey to a "quality" survey, more of an "effectiveness" survey. :shrugs:
 
T...And the U.S. *IS* #1 in one particular category - the percentage of GDP going to the cost of health care. ...
They were also #1 in level of responsiveness. No 10 month waiting list for cancer surgery. :grin01:
 
They were also #1 in level of responsiveness. No 10 month waiting list for cancer surgery. :grin01:

Head to an ER with with impacted ear wax, and they're legally *bound* to be responsive. However, that's not the purpose of an ER.

You were saying something about "effectiveness"?

:grin01: backatcha. ;)


Dale
 
I wouldn't believe all the statistics about the US's health care rank honestly we may not be #1 on any scale, but definitely not number 37. You have to take into account how this rank is measured in the first place, quality of life vs. longevity, socioeconomic status, and lifestyle differences which make it nearly impossible to rank any country vs. another in the first place.

You're absolutely right that there are many variables and that those rankings should be taken with a grain of salt. But what is fact is that we spend A LOT more per capita than every other industrialized nation.

IIRC, in last month's National Geographic, they had a blurb about it. We spend ~$7200 per person per year and second place was ~$5000. The average was around $3500-4000 but that for the results and outcome of that care and money spent placed us right around the middle.

Fact is that other countries do it for a lot less with minimal consequences on the outcome.

I am however pretty peeved their pulling the whole pass now why vote tactic- digusting in my opinion. Health care needs reform, but not like this. Government control over health care options is scary enough and now they want to rush it through with as few eyes scrutinizing it as possible- hold on America and stay healthy this is going to be one hell of a ride:(

Yeah, I'm not too thrilled about it either. But at the same time, its hard to pass it when you have Republicans flat out lying about it and using scare tactics to rally against it. You can't expect one side to play clean when the other side isn't. Pendulum swings both ways, in a few years when Republicans are in power, they're going to have a hard time passing their agenda with the precedent they're setting. It'll come back to haunt them.
 
Head to an ER with with impacted ear wax, and they're legally *bound* to be responsive. However, that's not the purpose of an ER.

You were saying something about "effectiveness"?

:grin01: backatcha. ;)


Dale
Try a UHS for impacted ear wax. I dated a girl in Germany that had to wait 9 months for an eye exam for blurred vision. I didn't ride with her anywhere. ;)
 
IIRC, in last month's National Geographic, they had a blurb about it. We spend ~$7200 per person per year and second place was ~$5000. The average was around $3500-4000 but that for the results and outcome of that care and money spent placed us right around the middle.

Fact is that other countries do it for a lot less with minimal consequences on the outcome.

Most other countries actually have higher rates of healthy behaviors, fewer totally sedentary people who belong on The Biggest Loser. And those other countries do NOT have a large percentage of people who expect an MRI for 1 day of back pain or an antibiotic for 1 day of cold symptoms.

Edit: Those other countries also have a much lower rate of medical malpractice lawsuits IIRC.
 
Most other countries actually have higher rates of healthy behaviors, fewer totally sedentary people who belong on The Biggest Loser. And those other countries do NOT have a large percentage of people who expect an MRI for 1 day of back pain or an antibiotic for 1 day of cold symptoms.

Edit: Those other countries also have a much lower rate of medical malpractice lawsuits IIRC.

Betsy, I haven't read the entire thread, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the proposed reform?
 
Last edited:
Well, the proposal, as understand it (bearing in mind it is over 1000 pages long & I have NOT read all of it!) will do a good thing and some bad things.

The good thing is it will bring health insurance to more people. Those people are currently not getting good care, they go to the ED only when they are desperate, and they get emergency care that is very high quality but they don't get the follow up care that is needed to provide good overall care. Getting more people insurance is a good thing, no doubt about it, a VERY good thing.

The first bad thing is that it does NOTHING to control cost drivers. Unhealthy lifestyle, demand for expensive testing whether appropriate or not, demand for maximum care even when that won't change the outcome, physicians need to do tests to protect themselves against lawsuits -- none of these are addressed directly.

Secondly, it won't stop insurance company executives from paying themselves ludicrous amounts of money. Not that that is a huge cost driver, but it sure sticks in the craw of physicians and patients!

Thirdly, it WILL cut reimbursements to physicians. Now, some physicians are very generously paid indeed & could easily survive a pay cut. Pediatricians, general internists, family practice physicians, and obstetricians all do NOT make all that much money. They earn $100,000 - 200,000 a year before taxes. Good money but not great. Most of them have $25,000 or more per year in STUDENT LOAN repayments, plus they have mortgages, car payments, children to raise & send to college, and retirement to save for. Physicians don't get 401K matching payments, so they have to put away all of their retirement money themselves. If their pay is cut by much, they will simply quit practicing medicine, reducing the supply of physicians in the most needed categories, those that provide primary care. We already have a shortage of these types of physicians in some parts of the country.

There are other shortages too, including rheumatologists (who treat patients with severe arthritic conditions), and neurologists, who treat brain & nerve disorders, including things like multiple sclerosis & stroke. These folks are not well-paid, because they have to spend a long time with each patient to explain things to the patient, because it is complicated and because frightened people have a harder time absorbing information quickly. Many of these types of specialists will also decide not to practice medicine any more if their pay is cut.

So there's my perspective. Am I against health care reform? No. But I am severely unimpressed with the current proprosals.
 
Beautifully stated, Betsy! I think everyone agrees that everyone should be granted health care, but they don't have the knowledge or foresight to see the damage that could happen in the long run. Wouldn't "insurance" reform be a wonderful thing??
 
Most other countries actually have higher rates of healthy behaviors, fewer totally sedentary people who belong on The Biggest Loser. And those other countries do NOT have a large percentage of people who expect an MRI for 1 day of back pain or an antibiotic for 1 day of cold symptoms.

This is also very true! The obesity epidemic should be a big concern for our country. Sadly people just don't care about their health enough to do anything.

Edit: Those other countries also have a much lower rate of medical malpractice lawsuits IIRC.

I believe you're right. But even then, malpractice suits/insurance only account for a few percentage points of our spending on healthcare. Even if we had tort reform, it won't have a noticeable impact. And that's also assuming that the savings doctors saw would be passed on to their patients.

In Texas we have had tort reform. The size and amount of malpractice settlements have declined, yet those costs haven't been passed onto the consumer.
 
I believe you're right. But even then, malpractice suits/insurance only account for a few percentage points of our spending on healthcare. Even if we had tort reform, it won't have a noticeable impact. And that's also assuming that the savings doctors saw would be passed on to their patients.

It is NOT the cost of the suits, or the cost of malpractice insurance that causes malpractice to be a big cost driver. It is the way physicians do EXTRA, extra tests, extra specialty consults, extra lab work, EXTRA EVERYTHING, just in case there is a 1 in 1,000,000 that the person will have a serious disease or a bad outcome, and subsequently sue. A 2008 survey I read reported that 25% of tests were ordered "just in case" to make sure the chart looked good if there was a subsequent lawsuit. That a lot of tests, and a lot of money.

Edit: MRIs cost $500-5,000 depending on the study. Probably 10-20% of all MRIs are ordered "just in case" because it is a lot easier to defend a malpractice suit if there is an appropriate MRI that was normal.
 
Gotta love the gov estimated costs.

In 1967 the gov officially estimated the projected annual cost of medicare in 1990 would be $12bil. In 1990 it actually cost $98bil. Today it costs $500bil annually. Yeah I feel real comfortable believing their figures. If we extrapolate based on their past medical financial accuracy ... hmmm. Projected $12bil actual was eight times that at $98bil and 20 years later it was over five times the latter number at $500bil. Now take the $1tril figure 20 yrs from now it will be $8tril 20 yrs after that it will be $40tril. Ouch!

Maybe we shouldn't just blindly believe their politically made up projection based on their historical accuracy of making those projections. :shrugs:

Most everyone I have talked to agrees we need change. But the politico's change for change sake so they ram something through to brag that they did something is probably not what we need.
 
Most everyone I have talked to agrees we need change. But the politico's change for change sake so they ram something through to brag that they did something is probably not what we need.

The problem is how long they've been trying to make change and have been blocked? 60 years? At this point I'd like to see something go through. If it's expensive (or flawed in some other major way), there will likely be more drive from EVERYONE to get something done (besides simple tort reform). If it doesn't go through we're not very likely to be hearing much about it from anyone for another 10 years.
I heard on the radio that Senate Finance commitee says this bill will reduce the deficit by $128B over ten years. Even Boehner's response to that was that 'quality would be less'. I took that as his conceeding that they were pretty close on the estimate. :shrugs:
 
It is NOT the cost of the suits, or the cost of malpractice insurance that causes malpractice to be a big cost driver. It is the way physicians do EXTRA, extra tests, extra specialty consults, extra lab work, EXTRA EVERYTHING, just in case there is a 1 in 1,000,000 that the person will have a serious disease or a bad outcome, and subsequently sue. A 2008 survey I read reported that 25% of tests were ordered "just in case" to make sure the chart looked good if there was a subsequent lawsuit. That a lot of tests, and a lot of money.

Edit: MRIs cost $500-5,000 depending on the study. Probably 10-20% of all MRIs are ordered "just in case" because it is a lot easier to defend a malpractice suit if there is an appropriate MRI that was normal.

I misunderstood your post. I thought you were speaking to tort reform, which is a small part of cost. But excess tests are a big problem as you said.
 
Back
Top