USA health care in terrible shape

This report on a recent study shows how the rate of uninsured in this country contributes to our ranking as the WORST among industrialized nations in preventing death.

if you read the acticle the woman says that our health care system is really good....the main problem it only works if you have ACCESS to it.UnknownSniper65

Exactly why our healtcare system sucks.

Everyone should have acess, but God forbid we do anything remotely socialist.....

It says people with insurance are in better shape than people without. That's nothing new.

It says people with insurance are in better shape than people without. That's nothing new.

Oleg_Huzwog

What's new is that we are LAST among industrialized nations. That should signal that change is necessary.

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]if you read the acticle the woman says that our health care system is really good....the main problem it only works if you have ACCESS to it.Thechaninator

Exactly why our healtcare system sucks.

Everyone should have acess, but God forbid we do anything remotely socialist.....

yet we support a welfare system that allows people to continue drug habits,laziness and violence

Health care itself is not in terrible shape. Access is a bit of a problem.LJS9502_basic

That's debatable. By leaving it in the hands of corporations whos main purpose is profit, they retain the right to exclude the poorer percentage of the population due to the fact that they will cost the corporation money to keep alive.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Health care itself is not in terrible shape. Access is a bit of a problem.Engrish_Major

That's debatable. By leaving it in the hands of corporations whos main purpose is profit, they retain the right to exclude the poorer percentage of the population due to the fact that they will cost the corporation money to keep alive.

The poor percentage of the population has medical covered by government assistance. There is also assistance for working families. Thing is....the insurance payments are high for families so they don't want to pay for insurance. But..they do have expensive SUV's, computers with internet, cable TV, consoles etc. It's priorities that are wrong here.

Look at the waiting list in some countries for necessary operations....and, many people come from various countries for life saving treatment in the states. That should tell you something.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Health care itself is not in terrible shape. Access is a bit of a problem.LJS9502_basic

That's debatable. By leaving it in the hands of corporations whos main purpose is profit, they retain the right to exclude the poorer percentage of the population due to the fact that they will cost the corporation money to keep alive.

The poor percentage of the population has medical covered by government assistance. There is also assistance for working families. Thing is....the insurance payments are high for families so they don't want to pay for insurance. But..they do have expensive SUV's, computers with internet, cable TV, consoles etc. It's priorities that are wrong here.

Look at the waiting list in some countries for necessary operations....and, many people come from various countries for life saving treatment in the states. That should tell you something.

Your first paragraph includes vast generalizations - I personally know multiple people (with kids) who do not own any luxuries at all yet do not own health insurance because of the cost.

For your second point, this 'waiting list' can be avoided by restructuring the system - as Canada is looking at doing now - by prioritizing needs, which is something that many other countries do not do very well. Saying we cannot pull this off better than Canada or France is discounting American resources, and ingenuity and inventiveness, some things that we were supposed to be the world leader at.

Your first paragraph includes vast generalizations - I personally know multiple people (with kids) who do not own any luxuries at all yet do not own health insurance because of the cost.

For your second point, this 'waiting list' can be avoided by restructuring the system - as Canada is looking at doing now - by prioritizing needs, which is something that many other countries do not do very well. Saying we cannot pull this off better than Canada or France is discounting American resources, and ingenuity and inventiveness, some things that we were supposed to be the world leader at.

Engrish_Major

Poor people are on welfare dude...medical comes with that. I believe you are talking about lower middle class...and there are assistance programs in most states for families.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Your first paragraph includes vast generalizations - I personally know multiple people (with kids) who do not own any luxuries at all yet do not own health insurance because of the cost.

For your second point, this 'waiting list' can be avoided by restructuring the system - as Canada is looking at doing now - by prioritizing needs, which is something that many other countries do not do very well. Saying we cannot pull this off better than Canada or France is discounting American resources, and ingenuity and inventiveness, some things that we were supposed to be the world leader at.

LJS9502_basic

Poor people are on welfare dude...medical comes with that. I believe you are talking about lower middle class...and there are assistance programs in most states for families.

Okay, but we still have 50 million uninsured people. And many who are insured are screwed out of procedures by the insurance companies who do not want to pay for them.

The article is about deaths that are preventable. Connect the dots.

Okay, but we still have 50 million uninsured people. And many who are insured are screwed out of procedures by the insurance companies who do not want to pay for them.

The article is about deaths that are preventable. Connect the dots.

Engrish_Major

Deaths occur with socialized medicine as well due to waiting lists. I don't see the difference in that respect...neither is good.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Okay, but we still have 50 million uninsured people. And many who are insured are screwed out of procedures by the insurance companies who do not want to pay for them.

The article is about deaths that are preventable. Connect the dots.

LJS9502_basic

Deaths occur with socialized medicine as well due to waiting lists. I don't see the difference in that respect...neither is good.

Dude, the whole article defines the major disparity between the preventable deaths in our nation vs other industrialized nations! That is the whole point of this thread!!

Dude, the whole article defines the major disparity between the preventable deaths in our nation vs other industrialized nations! That is the whole point of this thread!!

Engrish_Major

And I don't happen to believe it's that big of a disparity.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Dude, the whole article defines the major disparity between the preventable deaths in our nation vs other industrialized nations! That is the whole point of this thread!!

LJS9502_basic

And I don't happen to believe it's that big of a disparity.

Um, about 40% more preventable deaths than the top countries? Did you read the article?

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]if you read the acticle the woman says that our health care system is really good....the main problem it only works if you have ACCESS to it.Thechaninator

Exactly why our healtcare system sucks.

Everyone should have acess, but God forbid we do anything remotely socialist.....

Um, about 40% more preventable deaths than the top countries? Did you read the article?

Engrish_Major

However, you are talking about US healthcare and to be fair you have to include all citizens...and when you do that rate will fall.

If you look at our medicalprofessionals and institutions, we have some of the best in the world. Its just that access to it is not a right, its a privalige.

Darthmatt

I think that sums up our situation nicely. The opponents of health care reform seem to be strangely silent on this thread. Maybe we just need more damning evidence in cold hard numbers and facts such as this article to surface (instead of just Michael Moore movies) for people to wake up to the fact that change is necessary.

[QUOTE="Darthmatt"]

If you look at our medicalprofessionals and institutions, we have some of the best in the world. Its just that access to it is not a right, its a privalige.

Engrish_Major

I think that sums up our situation nicely. The opponents of health care reform seem to be strangely silent on this thread. Maybe we just need more damning evidence in cold hard numbers and facts such as this article to surface (instead of just Michael Moore movies) for people to wake up to the fact that change is necessary.

I'm one of those who believe health care is a privilege and not a right. I am not interested in statistics that include the uninsured. Show me damning evidence that compares people who are insured in the U.S. versus people who are insured in other countries.

I'm one of those who believe health care is a privilege and not a right. I am not interested in statistics that include the uninsured. Show me damning evidence that compares people who are insured in the U.S. versus people who are insured in other countries.

Oleg_Huzwog

For the rich, the coverage is great! But for the middle and lower class (even insured), there are gaps in the quality of coverage as compared to other industrialized nations. See the articles below if you do not believe me.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=364437

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2006/10/23/prsd1023.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/15/1198/

http://healthinsurance.about.com/b/2006/09/26/us-health-care-outcomes-compare-unfavorably-to-other-industrialized-countries.htm

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

I'm one of those who believe health care is a privilege and not a right. I am not interested in statistics that include the uninsured. Show me damning evidence that compares people who are insured in the U.S. versus people who are insured in other countries.

Engrish_Major

For the rich, the coverage is great! But for the middle and lower class (even insured), there are gaps in the quality of coverage as compared to other industrialized nations. See the articles below if you do not believe me.

I'm definitely not rich...but I have good health care.:|

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Dude, the whole article defines the major disparity between the preventable deaths in our nation vs other industrialized nations! That is the whole point of this thread!!

LJS9502_basic

And I don't happen to believe it's that big of a disparity.

So, we're in last...but it doesn't really matter, since we're in last by only a little bit? :roll:

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

For the rich, the coverage is great! But for the middle and lower class (even insured), there are gaps in the quality of coverage as compared to other industrialized nations. See the articles below if you do not believe me.

LJS9502_basic

I'm definitely not rich...but I have good health care.:|

Ditto.

So, we're in last...but it doesn't really matter, since we're in last by only a little bit? :roll:

JML897

The topic is misleading. The health care is not the problem...it's a problem for those uninsured. Big difference.:roll: And since they didn't consider total Americans the report is skewed. If they did....we undoubtedly wouldn't be last.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

So, we're in last...but it doesn't really matter, since we're in last by only a little bit? :roll:

LJS9502_basic

The topic is misleading. The health care is not the problem...it's a problem for those uninsured. Big difference.:roll: And since they didn't consider total Americans the report is skewed. If they did....we undoubtedly wouldn't be last.

Where does it say they didn't consider total Americans? It says they looked at preventable deaths before age 75.

Ok, so most of you from what I gather a fairly smart, there's only one thing I want ALL of you to do. Watch Michael Moore's Documentary entitled SICKO. It breaks down our healthcare system and compares it to 4 other countries, Canada, France, England and Cuba. It's a great documentary and is an eye-opener, it will answer many of your questions and probably bring up new ones. =) Enjoy....

Michael Moore's SICKO... please watch it... this coming from a RN which watching this film inpacted greatly...

Happy Gaming...

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="JML897"]

So, we're in last...but it doesn't really matter, since we're in last by only a little bit? :roll:

Engrish_Major

The topic is misleading. The health care is not the problem...it's a problem for those uninsured. Big difference.:roll: And since they didn't consider total Americans the report is skewed. If they did....we undoubtedly wouldn't be last.

Where does it say they didn't consider total Americans? It says they looked at preventable deaths before age 75.

From what I read, it definitely sounded like they considered "total Americans" -- they said that because so many people aren't covered, the United States came in last. At least, that's what I thought I read.

I'm one of those who believe health care is a privilege and not a right. I am not interested in statistics that include the uninsured. Show me damning evidence that compares people who are insured in the U.S. versus people who are insured in other countries.

Oleg_Huzwog

I'm with you on that boat. When people wake up and stop passing the blame; and realize it's consumers themselves who are at fault, maybe, just maybe, it will get better.

Ok, so most of you from what I gather a fairly smart, there's only one thing I want ALL of you to do. Watch Michael Moore's Documentary entitled SICKO. It breaks down our healthcare system and compares it to 4 other countries, Canada, France, England and Cuba. It's a great documentary and is an eye-opener, it will answer many of your questions and probably bring up new ones. =) Enjoy....

Michael Moore's SICKO... please watch it... this coming from a RN which watching this film inpacted greatly...

Happy Gaming...

__MasterVAL__

Where does it say they didn't consider total Americans? It says they looked at preventable deaths before age 75.

Engrish_Major

I was referring to your comment...though 101,000 is definitely not a big number. And they used those who couldn't reach timely medical health...which would be the uninsured. It says that in the report.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

I'm one of those who believe health care is a privilege and not a right. I am not interested in statistics that include the uninsured. Show me damning evidence that compares people who are insured in the U.S. versus people who are insured in other countries.

LukeAF24

I'm with you on that boat. When people wake up and stop passing the blame; and realize it's consumers themselves who are at fault, maybe, just maybe, it will get better.

It's consumers fault that because of greedy insurance companies, Americans pay multiple times that of other industrialized nations for coverage?

hey.

stop..

didn't you guys know that ron paul has delivered 4000 babies?

It's consumers fault that because of greedy insurance companies, Americans pay multiple times that of other industrialized nations for coverage?

Engrish_Major

If you went to the doctor today, do you even know how much he would charge? I doubt it. People spend more time and research shopping for a HDTV, than they do shopping for health care. That is problem #1.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

Where does it say they didn't consider total Americans? It says they looked at preventable deaths before age 75.

LJS9502_basic

I was referring to your comment...though 101,000 is definitely not a big number. And they used those who couldn't reach timely medical health...which would be the uninsured. It says that in the report.

No, it says # out of 100,000, which is a common way of quoting statistics. That doesn't mean they only looked at 100,000 cases. (or else it would mean that there were 109.7 deaths, don't know how that is possible).

And, no, it does not say that it only counted uninsured. I do not think they would compare only uninsured in this country to the insured in others.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

It's consumers fault that because of greedy insurance companies, Americans pay multiple times that of other industrialized nations for coverage?

LukeAF24

If you went to the doctor today, do you even know how much he would charge? I doubt it. People spend more time and research shopping for a HDTV, than they do shopping for health care. That is problem #1.

We are in agreement there.

Shameless consumerism FTL.

No, it says # out of 100,000, which is a common way of quoting statistics. That doesn't mean they only looked at 100,000 cases. (or else it would mean that there were 109.7 deaths, don't know how that is possible).

And, no, it does not say that it only counted uninsured. I do not think they would compare only uninsured in this country to the insured in others.

Engrish_Major

That's not what it said.:|

Did you read the paragraph I referred you to in that report because it seems to avoid the insured.

We are in agreement there.

Shameless consumerism FTL.

Engrish_Major

Which is what I was saying. Poor consumerism is the number one problem facing the health care industry today. Gone are the day of HMOs where the doctor can charge whatever they want, and the consumer doesn't ever see a bill. Problem is, doctors still charge whatever they want, and insurance companies are now passing portions of the bill onto the consumer. Which, is the way it should be.

If people would shop around for the best bang for their buck, doctors would actually have to compete, and prices would fall. As would insurance premiums.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

No, it says # out of 100,000, which is a common way of quoting statistics. That doesn't mean they only looked at 100,000 cases. (or else it would mean that there were 109.7 deaths, don't know how that is possible).

And, no, it does not say that it only counted uninsured. I do not think they would compare only uninsured in this country to the insured in others.

LJS9502_basic

That's not what it said.:|

Did you read the paragraph I referred you to in that report because it seems to avoid the insured.

No, it says that the large amount in the US is a 'key factor' in our ranking.

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

It says people with insurance are in better shape than people without. That's nothing new.

Engrish_Major

What's new is that we are LAST among industrialized nations. That should signal that change is necessary.

mm, change, I think I hear that word before -__-

No, it says that the large amount in the US is a 'key factor' in our ranking.

Engrish_Major

That's not what I was referring to though....the part about timely assistance. I take that to mean that those without health care don't seek treatment as quickly and therefore, that would contribute to their deaths...which could have been preventable. Our health care is very good here. I don't believe we have more preventable deaths overall. I think they made a distinction in this report that is being missed.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

No, it says that the large amount in the US is a 'key factor' in our ranking.

LJS9502_basic

That's not what I was referring to though....the part about timely assistance. I take that to mean that those without health care don't seek treatment as quickly and therefore, that would contribute to their deaths...which could have been preventable. Our health care is very good here. I don't believe we have more preventable deaths overall. I think they made a distinction in this report that is being missed.

Do you know that many insured in this country do not even report illnesses because of fear of loss or increase in insurance premiums?

No, it says that the large amount in the US is a 'key factor' in our ranking.

Engrish_Major

It says "tracked deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care" which would lean disproportionately towards the uninsured. If they had insurance, they probably would've had access to timely and effective health care.

[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

No, it says that the large amount in the US is a 'key factor' in our ranking.

Oleg_Huzwog

It says "tracked deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care" which would lean disproportionately towards the uninsured. If they had insurance, they probably would've had access to timely and effective health care.

Exactly...so it's a skewed report. My point.

Do you know that many insured in this country do not even report illnesses because of fear of loss or increase in insurance premiums?

Engrish_Major

That's not entirely true...where do you get this?

[QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]

No, it says that the large amount in the US is a 'key factor' in our ranking.

LJS9502_basic

It says "tracked deaths that they deemed could have been prevented by access to timely and effective health care" which would lean disproportionately towards the uninsured. If they had insurance, they probably would've had access to timely and effective health care.

Exactly...so it's a skewed report. My point.

Of course it's skewed!!! It is meant to show how lower and middle class in this country are at an automatic disadvantage as compared to other countries. That is the whole point!!!

Land of opportunity my ass.

Anyway, the percentage of people in this country (including insured) not reporting illnesses, even chronic, is far higher than that of other countries, because of cost. And I repeat, including insured.

Of course it's skewed!!! It is meant to show how lower and middle class in this country are at an automatic disadvantage as compared to other countries. That is the whole point!!!

Land of opportunity my ass.

Anyway, the percentage of people in this country (including insured) not reporting illnesses, even chronic, is far higher than that of other countries, because of cost. And I repeat, including insured.

Engrish_Major

Again...the topic is incorrect. It's not the US health care that is terrible...it's the lack of insurance. Two different things.