Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I'm actually not assuming either of those scenarios. I'm assuming that people who cannot afford the top of the line health care will not receive the best health care, period. Now if you wanna argue that our mainstream run-o-the-mill treatments are more effective than other countries go right ahead, but I'm simply saying that if we have the best health care in the world but that level of care is only available to 5% of the population then it's not indicative of our nation's overall Health Coverage System, as it only shows what level those top 5% get.

Yes, the actual level of health care is top notch, hands down. BUT if that level only applies to a select number of people, then there's a discrepancy between what our theoretical health coverage system is like compared to how it actually plays out in practical terms.

Likewise, having the best body armor in the world means precisely jack shit if we have problems getting it to the troops or the troops simply don't wear it......

Yeah, it's the best, but if no one's using it it's not really fair to claim that it's indicative of the entire nation.

And yeah, I know "top 5%" is a generalization, so you don't need to go there.

At 11/26/07 01:16 AM, Imperator wrote: I'm actually not assuming either of those scenarios. I'm assuming that people who cannot afford the top of the line health care will not receive the best health care, period.

And yet countries that have universal healthcare save less lives in their nation as a whole from their treatments. Thus making the "access" entirely irrelevant, and making your argument entirely inapplicable.

Now if you wanna argue that our mainstream run-o-the-mill treatments are more effective than other countries go right ahead

K, because it is.

but I'm simply saying that if we have the best health care in the world but that level of care is only available to 5% of the population then it's not indicative of our nation's overall Health Coverage System, as it only shows what level those top 5% get.

1) 5% is quite an interesting number you just came to.

2) Why would it matter if the best healthcare we have is only available to a certain percentage, if our healthcare still ends up saving more lives in the nation as a whole, regardless of the coverage of the people?

Yes, the actual level of health care is top notch, hands down. BUT if that level only applies to a select number of people, then there's a discrepancy between what our theoretical health coverage system is like compared to how it actually plays out in practical terms.

LOL!

Kind of like how it's theoretical that countries where everyone is covered under a government-provided system will someone treat more people, and treat them more successfully? Which is actually only theoretical, considering their waiting lines as well as their lesser access to state-of-the-art treatments that they have compared to the US.

Once again, to quote the cancer treatment article:

International comparisons establish that the most important factors in cancer survival are early diagnosis, time to treatment and access to the most effective drugs. Some uninsured cancer patients in the United States encounter problems with timely treatment and access, but a far larger proportion of cancer patients in Europe face these troubles. No country on the globe does as good a job overall as the United States.

It's funny you'd call healthcare superiority "theoretical". We have healthcare that is so much better that regardless of whether or not there is a difference in quality for certain people, it still saves more lives in the long run. We have healthcare that despite the lack of insurance for some, is still better, and still more accessible to the nation as a whole.

Furthermore:

It is often claimed that people have better access to preventive screenings in universal health care systems. But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment.

People have access to better treatment for cancer in the US regardless of their coverage situation.

Now the reason I emphasize cancer so much is because it is the biggest threat to health in the US.

Now before you say something dumb like "wouldn't that mean we are less capable of treating it?"... consider the fact that mortality rates for both cancer and the 2nd biggest killer - heart disease - are both dropping, but the reason cancer death is higher is because drops in heart disease deaths have been more dramatic.

Likewise, having the best body armor in the world means precisely jack shit if we have problems getting it to the troops or the troops simply don't wear it......

Not applicable. But if we want to expand that analogy we could say soldiers from other countries get both less quality body armor, and less of it... saving less lives. Thus making it irrelevant whether or not their militaries consider body armor an entitlement, thus making the illusion of it being more fair and benevolent just that - an illusion.

Yeah, it's the best, but if no one's using it it's not really fair to claim that it's indicative of the entire nation.

Um even though it IS indicative of the entire nation, as shown?

Lol.

2) Why would it matter if the best healthcare we have is only available to a certain percentage, if our healthcare still ends up saving more lives in the nation as a whole, regardless of the coverage of the people?

Because the vast majority are not being saved by the best health care, they're being saved by something less than that. You can't argue that the best health care is the reason more lives are saved if no one actually GETS that level of health care. It's not indicative of what that health care is doing, it's indicative of what the more mainstream LOWER level of health care is doing.

It's more appropriate to say our mediocre care saves more lives.

Um even though it IS indicative of the entire nation, as shown?

It's indicative of the people who GET that level of care. And the entire nation does NOT get that level of care, so no, it's not indicative.

Now before you say something dumb

And on that note:

Whatever you say cellypoo.

Can't keep it civil, then I'm done.

At 11/26/07 02:11 AM, Imperator wrote:

2) Why would it matter if the best healthcare we have is only available to a certain percentage, if our healthcare still ends up saving more lives in the nation as a whole, regardless of the coverage of the people?

Because the vast majority are not being saved by the best health care

And yet they are being saved by care that is still better than their European (or Canadian) counterparts.

they're being saved by something less than that.

That is still better than socialized healthcare.

You can't argue that the best health care is the reason more lives are saved if no one actually GETS that level of health care.

Lol you can't argue that people aren't getting better care in the US even though the entire US as a whole is still getting more access and better, more successful treatments than people in countries with nationalized medicine.

This results in Americans, regardless of their status... being more likely to be treated successfully.

It's not indicative of what that health care is doing, it's indicative of what the more mainstream LOWER level of health care is doing.

The higher survivability from treatable diseases like cancer is because of higher quality healthcare, due to better screening, better diagnosis, and better access to state-of-the-art treatment.

It's more appropriate to say our mediocre care saves more lives.

Lol, you mean our care that may be mediocre compared to SOME levels of care within our country, yet is still SUPERIOR compared to the best care in countries that have a nationalized system?

Um even though it IS indicative of the entire nation, as shown?

It's indicative of the people who GET that level of care. And the entire nation does NOT get that level of care, so no, it's not indicative.

Lol, you have already been proved wrong in that idea. Just because you ignore it doesn't mean it's going to go away.

1) Are 5% of the population really only protected by american health care?

2) Can cellardoor prove the mainstream of the people who get standard heath care [not talking about the top 1%, i'm talking about middle range] are better than socialized standard health care quality?

You've proved it's better in temrs of saving lives but imperator know's how many poor people the health care system saves, since there is indeed something significant about specifically, the quality of health care for the poor.

And no, i don't mean poor as in broke, infact poor is an exageration. If you can't afford anything the best health care you can get is free health care. When i say poor i mean middle class

At 11/26/07 03:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

A bunch of stuff that basically says "USA healthcare is the best in the world"

World Heath Organization Rankings
# 37 United States of America

I think they know more than you do.

What's Amirca?

At 11/26/07 07:40 AM, bcdemon wrote:

I think they know more than you do.

Congrats on being a fucking idiot and not reading the thread.

At 11/26/07 06:52 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 1) Are 5% of the population really only protected by american health care?

For fuck sake.

Only 16% of Americans aren't covered by insurance. This still doesn't mean that they won't receive care, it just means that they might have to pay for it by themselves.

Frankly, I put saving lives above saving people from being in debt.

The US system is better at saving lives than all the European countries that rank higher due to arbitrary variables. Even though they have inferior quality care where it can actually be measured... in the ability to successfully treat people and prevent them from dying, they score better because of things that aren't even measuring the actual ability to save lives.

2) Can cellardoor prove the mainstream of the people who get standard heath care [not talking about the top 1%, i'm talking about middle range] are better than socialized standard health care quality?

Seriously, are you people in the twilight zone or something? Can you not read?

With cancer as an example, being the biggest risk to public health, the US excels, and this isn't exclusive to rich people.

International comparisons establish that the most important factors in cancer survival are early diagnosis, time to treatment and access to the most effective drugs. Some uninsured cancer patients in the United States encounter problems with timely treatment and access, but a far larger proportion of cancer patients in Europe face these troubles. No country on the globe does as good a job overall as the United States.

It is often claimed that people have better access to preventive screenings in universal health care systems. But despite the large number of uninsured, cancer patients in the United States are most likely to be screened regularly, and once diagnosed, have the fastest access to treatment.

And if someone wants to pretend like this is exclusive to cancer, we can also mention heart disease (heart failure) treatment mortality rates compared to say... Canada. Canada has a higher mortality rate in treatment of heart failure than the US does because the US has better, more aggressive care.

You've proved it's better in temrs of saving lives but imperator know's how many poor people the health care system saves, since there is indeed something significant about specifically, the quality of health care for the poor.

What are you talking about?

Americans, regardless of their coverage, have higher survivability. The entire country as a whole has more access to better medical treatment. Despite not all being covered, Americans still have the highest life expectancy in the western world when factors outside of healthcare are removed from the equation. Despite not all being covered, Americans are still more likely to be treated more quickly and more successfully regardless of their status.

At 11/26/07 07:40 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 11/26/07 03:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

A bunch of stuff that basically says "USA healthcare is the best in the world"

World Heath Organization Rankings
# 37 United States of America

I think they know more than you do.

You really, really have a problem with intellectual honesty.

We've already been through that. No where in that entire study does it gauge the actual quality of healthcare, it's giving a critique based on completely irrelevant factors. As shown, countries that score higher have lesser quality care than countries that score lower. As shown, some things like life expectancy and infant mortality rates do not actually gauge the healthcare quality of the country.

You're so pathetic, you just spout out something you have no clue about again and refuse to acknowledge where its use has already been discredited as a source.

So, where are we going to get the money to pay for universal healthcare? It will break the federal budget, taking the economy with it.

Entitlement programs already account for about 60% of the federal budget. How much more wealth redistribution do you want? At somepoint when you take from the rich and give to the poor, everyone will end up poor so there are no more evil, pig-dog industrialists providing jobs for anyone else.

Graph of 2008FY Federal Budget from the Washington Post

At 11/26/07 03:35 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/26/07 06:52 AM, SmilezRoyale wrote: 1) Are 5% of the population really only protected by american health care?

For fuck sake.

Only 16% of Americans aren't covered by insurance. This still doesn't mean that they won't receive care, it just means that they might have to pay for it by themselves.

Frankly, I put saving lives above saving people from being in debt.

Yet we have more and more people ending up homeless, and partially because of the cost of healthcare. A lot of people die on the streets.
If they die 5 years down the road because of the treatments to save them from one illness, what was the point?

At 11/27/07 12:55 AM, EnzeruAkuma wrote: Yet we have more and more people ending up homeless, and partially because of the cost of healthcare. A lot of people die on the streets.
If they die 5 years down the road because of the treatments to save them from one illness, what was the point?

Lol... that's probably one of the most illogical arguments I've ever heard.

1) You haven't proved that healthcare costs are making a signicant amount of people homeles.
2) You're basically suggesting that it doesn't matter that more lives are saved in the US, just because you claim they will be homeless.

You crack me up.

Also i find it interesting the course this discussion seems to have taken. Because as best i can figure the original poster was likely getting their information from the movie Sicko. That movie was about health insurrance and it's effect on the treatment of patients in the US. Not the healthcare system itself or its quality. I'll agree it doesn't take into consideration all the factors, but what it says about insurrance is spot on. There is a problem with that, a problem that needs to be addressed. My family has had it's own bouts with insurrance companies; it is a mess.

At 11/27/07 01:00 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/27/07 12:55 AM, EnzeruAkuma wrote: Yet we have more and more people ending up homeless, and partially because of the cost of healthcare. A lot of people die on the streets.
If they die 5 years down the road because of the treatments to save them from one illness, what was the point?

Lol... that's probably one of the most illogical arguments I've ever heard.

1) You haven't proved that healthcare costs are making a signicant amount of people homeles.
2) You're basically suggesting that it doesn't matter that more lives are saved in the US, just because you claim they will be homeless.

You crack me up.

I'm not setting out to prove anything. The entire financial system itself is the biggest cause of homelessness, not just healthcare costs. But it is a factor and it is one that makes it even worse for them once their homeless. I'm also not saying that more lives aren't saved in the US thanks to the quality of healthcare here. All that i am simply saying is there are a great many people that the system screws things up for and there are people that end up dying due to these faults. That is a problem that needs to be addressed.
I think i said earlier that universal healthcare may not be an answer; but an answer is needed.

Also your little side comments will have a tendancy to piss people off. You do that you might as well stop posting; because they stop listening to you at that point. Just a peice of advice.

At 11/25/07 04:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 11/25/07 03:50 AM, EnzeruAkuma wrote: Maybe socialized medicine isn't the answer for this country. However when you have people that are loosing everything they have, some even ending up on the streets, or even dying for no other bloody reason than not being able to pay for something or not being able to get an insurrance company to pay for it; that is a MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM!

When you have people waiting in line for long periods of time, getting less successful treatments, and dying because their SHITTY universal healthcare system is more concerned with cutting costs than saving lives... then you have a MAJOR FUCKING PROBLEM.

As i said "Maybe socialized medicine isn't the answer".
So why are you still griping about socialized medicine when i'm agreeing with you on that?
I was speaking of a problem that is entirely beside that point.

At 11/26/07 02:41 PM, Memorize wrote: Congrats on being a fucking idiot and not reading the thread.

Same old same old.

At 11/26/07 03:38 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You're so pathetic, you just spout out something you have no clue about again and refuse to acknowledge where its use has already been discredited as a source.

Sorry man, but I still think the World Health Organization knows more than you, especially when it comes to stuff like, world health issues. Just because it doesn't fit your opinion doesn't mean it's wrong.

There are plenty of posts already covering US health.

At 11/27/07 08:05 AM, bcdemon wrote:

Sorry man, but I still think the World Health Organization knows more than you, especially when it comes to stuff like, world health issues. Just because it doesn't fit your opinion doesn't mean it's wrong.

That certainly explains your stance on Iraq as opposed to the military's.

But I guess you certainly know more than them.

At 11/25/07 12:21 AM, RedSkunk wrote: Indicator Value (year)
Life expectancy at birth (years) males ?
Life expectancy at birth (years) females ?

The thing with these kindof statistics is that while there are differences ranging from 2 years for males and 5 years for females, is:

1) The difference is so slight as to be statistically insignificant.
2) Involves alot more than just access to healthcare, therefore the relationship may be spurious. Think about it, we live in the country that invented the Super Size. We're more sedentary than Europe and Cuba. We have a higher violent crime rate (cellar's probably hating me right now). Are these intervening variables controlled for somehow in the WHO's statistics? If they aren't (which is probably the case), then I'd say we're doing pretty damn good since we can hang with the supposed best with more strikes against us than they!

Physicians (density per 1 000 population) ?

Another question here is, of what quality are their physicians? It may just be me, but I'd rather have a Doc trained at the U of S. Carolina than Grenada Med.

Hospital beds (per 10 000 population)

Again, what is the quality of those beds, especially in Cuba? How many world class medical facilities do they have? Same goes for England and France? How many world-class treatment/research medical facilities do they have?

These statistics that you pointed to Skunk, do not address the issues of quality. :)

At 11/25/07 12:50 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Oh, and where in that entire list does it mention survival from treatable diseases? Where does it mention the success rate of operations, procedures, and treatments? Hmm?

I've told you before that one of the main pros with UHC is that people don't get as sick. And if people doesn't get as sick, the value of the survival rate of treatable diseases isn't as important.

At 11/27/07 09:51 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: I've told you before that one of the main pros with UHC is that people don't get as sick. And if people doesn't get as sick, the value of the survival rate of treatable diseases isn't as important.

Where is the data? Where is their methodolgy and what did they control for? How do we know that this correlation isn't spurious? The US has more fat people, worse diets, less exercise and a more violent culture. All of these can explain why people under UHC don't get as sick.

Cellar does have a point, where is the data that discusses the quality of treatment? Afterall the WHO did report that the US was at the top for responsiveness of healthcare...

At 11/27/07 10:33 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/27/07 09:51 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: I've told you before that one of the main pros with UHC is that people don't get as sick. And if people doesn't get as sick, the value of the survival rate of treatable diseases isn't as important.

Where is the data? Where is their methodolgy and what did they control for? How do we know that this correlation isn't spurious? The US has more fat people, worse diets, less exercise and a more violent culture. All of these can explain why people under UHC don't get as sick.

Cellar does have a point, where is the data that discusses the quality of treatment? Afterall the WHO did report that the US was at the top for responsiveness of healthcare...

Look, the only thing I'm saying is that the theory about universal healthcare is that when the individuals doesn't have to pay directly for checking themselves, they will do so more often. And regardless, if we don't consider which method is most effective to prevent sickness, I think it's safe to say that the amount of people GETTING diseases may differ between different systems and countries, regardless of demographics and the like. That the health care system CAN prevent illness. If that statement is correct, which I believe it is, without a good way to measure by how much it prevents, you can't really use the rates of succesful treatment against treatable diseases as a heavy indicator of a health care systems effectivity.

At 11/27/07 11:14 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 11/27/07 10:33 AM, TheMason wrote:

At 11/27/07 09:51 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

... That the health care system CAN prevent illness. If that statement is correct, which I believe it is, without a good way to measure by how much it prevents, you can't really use the rates of succesful treatment against treatable diseases as a heavy indicator of a health care systems effectivity.

You can use also sorts of readily available measures to test:

1) Obesity rates
2) Number of fast food restraunts per 1,000 people as a measure of diet

These are just starters. From here you can run multivariate linear regression models and other correlates that will tell you two things:

1) How statistically significant the relationship between the two are (ie: how often you'll get low inicidences of people becoming sick by chance in a UHC).
2) How much of the variance (occurence) is explained by UHC, obesity, number of McDonald's, etc.

I'm not arguing that access to healthcare can prevent disease, I am however interested in rival alternative hypothesis that may explain more substantial differences between countries with UHC and those without. That is why I want to see their data sets. Maybe this could be a project for next semester's Scope & Methods class...

Glad to find some rational thought still occurring, just clearing up a few things before jumping ship.

I'm being neither hypocritical or disingenuous, cellar door. You're being disingenuous in blaming minorities for "underachieving" and therefor lowering American "averages." I'll wholeheartedly agree that the reason why (certain) minorities have higher infant mortality rates and poorer health is irrelevant. They are still a part of the nation and still covered and patients of a given nation's healthcare system.

The fact that you're seemingly relying entirely on a single indicator (cancer survivability rates) instead of a multitude (as the WHO does) suggests your ideology is getting in the way of a rational discussion. In one sentence you're saying life expectancy has no bearing; in the next you're hailing a single questionable study which removes a variety of factors that play into life expectancy to come to a single (predetermined) result. You keep saying that the WHO doesn't factor in so-called "direct" measures of a healthcare system, when they do in fact take into account mortality rates of cancer patients (as well as a variety of other killers).

Thanks, it's been fun.

At 11/27/07 09:42 AM, TheMason wrote: 2) Involves alot more than just access to healthcare, therefore the relationship may be spurious.
These statistics that you pointed to Skunk, do not address the issues of quality. :)

They're indicators. I've already asked for a single statistic or indicator which only, solely assesses the quality of a healthcare system. Is there one? Not that I can think of. Cancer mortality is not such an indicator, as social norms can often determine early detection and awareness, and economics and politics via where the cutting edge is first introduced, or where drug trials face the most relaxed atmosphere. For example. Any single indicator will have flaws preventing us from saying: "Ho, here is the defining statistic."

As far as paying for it, try Kucinich's proposed plans.

"To cope with the endless bureaucracy of private insurers, health care providers maintain huge administrative staffs. The administration of the health care system today consumes approximately 31% of the money spent for health care. The potential savings, as much as $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to every American without paying any more than we already do."

Myths as Barriers to Health Care Reform (don't know if the link will work, found via dis). Healthcare costs in the US are expected to hit $2.2 trillion by 2008. A single-payed universal healthcare system would likely be more efficient, ridding the middle man (the HMO). There would be a shift from private to public expenditures. Naturally. This is what most people actually balk at. But the likely result for the bulk of America would be a lower cost associated with healthcare. The virtually unacknowledged benefit would be to (particularly small) businesses who would not have to incur such a large debt to maintain healthy workers.

At 11/27/07 08:05 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 11/26/07 03:38 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You're so pathetic, you just spout out something you have no clue about again and refuse to acknowledge where its use has already been discredited as a source.

Sorry man, but I still think the World Health Organization knows more than you

Find one single area where it gauges healthcare quality.

Go and find one single factor in that entire study that actually addresses the ability of healthcare to successfully treat people.

You can't. Because the study doesn't do that, at all.

especially when it comes to stuff like, world health issues.

Lol like cellphone usage... totally something that gauges the healthcare quality of a system, totally.

Just because it doesn't fit your opinion doesn't mean it's wrong.

Just because it's an organization that made it doesn't mean that it can be used and automatically give credibility to something you say it claims.

That study doesn't measure healthcare quality, at all. It measures a bunch of abitrary factors, none of which are even claimed to measure the actual ability of healthcare to treat people.

But thanks for proving how much of a mindless sheep you are when you can't think for yourself and actually give facts to back up your argument, you just link to something that doesn't claim what you suggest it does.

At 11/24/07 11:47 PM, Altiair wrote: America has the worst health care ever, it needs to be socialized England, France, and Cuba have better heath care. The heath care system has rejected so may people in need and they have died.

1. Fixed because your grammar was pissing me off like almost nothing else.
2. If someone is truly in need (ie:dying or possibly dying) it is against the law for the hospital not to take them in and treat them.
3. Support your opinions dammit.
4. If you don't like the health care system we have move somewhere else.

At 11/25/07 05:25 PM, StrawberryCat wrote: Well, if you come from the USA, it also needs a better education systems. Because your spelling is terrible.

"Amirca"? "amarica"? "solised"?

Public education blows no matter where you are Strawberry, there's also dumbasses in every country, more of the ones in America just have access to the internet.