Phydeaux
Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: It has nothing to do with 'socialist' view of fairness. What a myopic PoV. I said it was because of a socialist or 'fairness' point of view, and I am of course correct. Let me quote: Commonwealth Fund: Measures based on 5 features: Quality, Access, Efficiency, Equity, Healthy Lives. Equity is a fancy word for saying - treating poor people 'fairly'. Quoting further: Quality: The indicators of quality were grouped into effective care, safe care, coordinated care, and patient centered care. Compared with the other 10 countries, the US fares best on provision (of care) and recipt of preventive (care) and patient centered care. Read that again - the US fares BEST. So why does your Commonwealth fund overall rank the US so poorly - if the quality of its service is BEST ? Because the authors don't agree with HOW the service is allocated. Quality of service is balance with fairness. Allow me to quote: Equity: The US ranks a clear LAST on measures of Equity. In this study, 'fairness' and quality - have equal weight. So as I said - what your study measures isn't really healthcare, now is it. And in fact just to put the thumb on the scale further - they add in ACCESS, EFFICIENCY (which they rate by dollars spent - snicker) - and healthy lives. Yes, the US medical system sucks because we shoot each other with guns. Let me quote again. Fares BEST on Provision Fares BEST on Preventative Fares Best on Patient centric Lets turn to the WHO measure of healthcare shall we? http://www.photius.com/rankings/who_world_health_ranks.html quote:
WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs). So the WHO doesn't actually measure the quality of care - what it measures is how is that care distributed. As I said. Three of the indices are health inequalities within the system; how people with different economic status find they are served; and the distribution of the financial burder. Fairness counts three times - patient satisfaction counts once. And actual results - well they aren't counted at all. And yet you think it measures healthcare. How quaint. OECD - quote:
In this paper we present data from the OECD and WHO on the performance of the health care systems in twenty-nine industrialized countries.4 We focus our comparisons on six subject areas: (1) prevention, (2) health care resources and utilization, (3) medical procedures involving sophisticated technology, (4) mortality, (5) responsiveness, and (6) health spending. I'll casually note - that once again cost is not a measure of the quality of care. mortality, does in fact include crack babies. But here - let me quote: quote:
A systematic comparison of health education campaigns across countries is a necessary first step to evaluate the performance of countries’ efforts in promoting healthy lifestyles. So a failure to convince americans to eat less, smoke less, fornicate less, shoot each other less, excercise more - is a failure to provide quality care. Sure it is. You could actually try reading the UNESCO report, or Canada's report on healthcare - as I have. I leave the debunking of same as an exercise to the reader. quote:
One major thing that many in the US seem to miss - over here you have a choice. Sure - only you don't. After you pay your 11K per year (canada) for healthcare - most canadians don't have the money to afford good care, do they. Like wise - you're right - rich europeans do have a choice. You can fly to America to get good healthcare. Just like Americans can go to Mexico, Cuba, or India to get cheap care. Good, cheap, fast. Pick two. quote:
For example, full family cover is as little as $50 a month and is the equivalent of a gold policy in the US. And I understand I can get fully family cover in india for $35 rupees a month. By which I am saying: A- if you want to debate cost - fine - lets have that debate. B- if you want to debate insurance - we can have that debate too. Just don't confuse them with the quality of healthcare. And just because you can fly to the US and get healthcare - or buy american drugs - doesn't make British healthcare any better does it. I would say it indicates the contrary - wouldn't you?
< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 4/16/2016 10:02:26 PM >
|