OK, so our health care system sucks but at least we get to pay more for it than any other country.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20060921/bs_bw/tc20060921053503
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20060921/bs_bw/tc20060921053503
i must have missed the part which discussed the "solutions" ( ... to what has yet to be indentified as anything but a largely insoluble problem).The Commonwealth Fund, which studies health-care issues, commissioned the report last year as part of an effort to come up with solutions to the nation's troubled health-care system.
"Problem"? This is a tribute to capitalism & American culture!!OldMcDonald said:First you must get enough people to acknowledge there is a problem...without that, no solutions will matter.
Well, let's see. Let's be like other industrialized countries with a lower GDP, a lower per-capita consumption, and a generally lower quality of (consumerism) life. We'll make fewer products that encourage a sedentary lifestyle, although I'm not sure how Richard Simmons will fit into this scheme.OldMcDonald said:IMO, doing what most of the other industrialized countries do, where they spend less and get better care is a start, no?
Damn, there I was all focused on the language again and forgetting the cute pictures. Maybe I need an illustrator.Rich_in_Tampa said:Hey, Nords - I think you forgot your sarcasm emoticon.
So, Ol' McD, who goes first on the new system? You? Your family? Your friends? Or the "hopeless cases" and "lifestyle disease" spoilers who are needlessly raising the cost of your health insurance?
Anyone else?
Damn, there I was all focused on the language again and forgetting the cute pictures. Maybe I need an illustrator.
Nords said:"Problem"? This is a tribute to capitalism & American culture!!
Well, let's see.
HaHa said:Nords, the problem with this analysis is that it is pure bunk.
HaHa said:A competent researcher could start today, and in 10 years he likely could not substantiate anything of what you have said.
And of course you ignore the only hard data, which is very, very clear –our death rates at any age stink. 7 out of 1000 peri-natal infant deaths? That is getting frighteningly close to 1 out of 100.
And for this we pay 60% more than the next highest spender?
To me it sounds like you are saying "I like Tri-Care, and I don't care to have anything else looked at."
That might be rational from your POV, or not, but why not just say that instead of all this other stuff?
Ha
Guys, you remember John Belushi's trademark "Excuuuuuuse me!" remark on Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update"?Rich_in_Tampa said:Yeah it really wasn't up to Nords' usual standards. Kinda rabid, with a total lack of any supporting evidence. Til I hear more, the OP's article is much more convincing to me.
Then again, I know how broken the system is cause I work in it. Don't like it much on those occasions where I become a patient, either.
Shame on you. I don't salsa or party the night away either, but at least I pointed out what to me seem to be some very serious flaws in the author's ranking system. Neither one of us has the qualifications to analyze the author's conclusions, but at least I didn't base my analysis on a personal attack of one's background or experience.HaHa said:Nords, the problem with this analysis is that it is pure bunk. You spent your life in a sub; now surfing and throwing roundhouse kicks. Great and valuable things to do, but hardly creating qualifications for healthcare delivery research.
To me it sounds like you are saying "I like Tri-Care, and I don't care to have anything else looked at."
Rich_in_Tampa said:. Literally every day I see people who play by the rules but whose financial futures are in shambles due to illness. You know that nagging pain in your belly? Not heartburn for them, but pancreatic cancer. Feeling tired again, but longer than usual? Acute leukemia. Reading glasses not working anymore? Diabetes, even though you are not overweight. That nasty skin cyst getting bigger? Lymphoma.
I'm not a socialist idealogue but in matters of health care, the crisis is here and I favor universal coverage for at least catastrophic care (say after the first $10K of expenses per year per person). If that means higher taxes, so be it. And I have no problem with financial incentives to stop smoking, lose weight, etc. If you are currently in good shape with good insurance, be grateful and hope that it lasts. But for other 10s of millions, I don't think anyone benefits from a "let them eat cake" attitude - it's usually not their fault. Fortunately, nobody in this current topic has taken such a stance, but I've heard it many times, often between the lines.
I know it's hard to change peoples' minds on this topic, but I hope this at least presents a different viewpoint.