nanook 1 #101 March 8, 2009 QuoteSo professional careers that require a degree beyond the batchelors should be restricted to people who are wealthy enough to not have to work their way through grad school. No. If grad school is more important than health care then go for it. If health care is more important, find better work. If you are short on funds, you have to choose. QuoteAs a general rule part-time jobs don't come with benefits. Get a full time job. Jeez, a 60-70 hour workweek from work alone is a luxury. You are allowed to add a lot more. Sometimes getting four hours of sleep on some nights is a requirement to get what you really want in life. There are jobs out there that don't care what kind of Bachelors degree you have as long as you have one._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #102 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYes. But only because physicians had to FIGHT the decision of the government. Why do we have to battle the "bean counters" to give good care? Because I don't want to be the evil one to tell these ladies - "There are other options that might be best for you.... but you don't get to have it.... unless you pay out of pocket." Don't look now, but you're making an argument supporting universal healthcare over private, for profit care. No ... I'm not. I'm saying that I do not WANT to and MANY physicians do NOT fight the decisions by the government. In that situation, the patients will be limited in their options.... and the physicians will have to be the evil ones to tell them "no." Right, but many of the things you are fighting are instances of the government spending a dollar to make sure a dime is received undeservedly. With a well designed universal system, you don't have to say "no, because you can't afford it" nearly as often as you do now or if we had no government healthcare at all. Your concerns are highly unlikely to be addressed without socialized healthcare or, as one poster has suggested, universal coverage provided by private not for profit insurance companies (apologies to pirana for over simplifying the latter description).Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #103 March 8, 2009 OK. It seems that I have to explain basics. Do YOU understand that Medicaid IS government provided medicine? So when I'm complaining about the problems with medicaid, I'm complaining about the problems that are with government provided medicine. I have worked within this system. I don't think it is best. I'm not saying private insurance is best or not... but government controls limit the practice of medicine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #104 March 8, 2009 QuoteDo YOU understand that Medicaid IS government provided medicine? Yes. Do YOU understand the Medicaid IS NOT the only model for government provided medicine? Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #105 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteDo YOU understand that Medicaid IS government provided medicine? Yes. Do YOU understand the Medicaid IS NOT the only model for government provided medicine? Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Oh right. There's Medicare. I can list problems with that system too. And even Tricare.... which is one of the reasons that I got out of the miiitary. I have said the system is broken. But, I do NOT want the government involved in medical decision making. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #106 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteDo YOU understand that Medicaid IS government provided medicine? Yes. Do YOU understand the Medicaid IS NOT the only model for government provided medicine? Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Oh right. There's Medicare. I can list problems with that system too. And even Tricare.... which is one of the reasons that I got out of the miiitary. I have said the system is broken. But, I do NOT want the government involved in medical decision making. Why not? - private enterprise has had decades and you admit it can't fix the problems in the system it created.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #107 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuote But, I do NOT want the government involved in medical decision making. Why not? - private enterprise has had decades and you admit it can't fix the problems in the system it created. THAT is a good question with a simple answer. I do NOT trust the government. I do NOT want to rely on the government. I personally believe in PERSONAL autonomy and responsibility. And I can not reconcile with the government telling me as a physician what is cost effective care, nor telling me as a patient what I amd "entitled" to. I want the right to research my conditions and decide what is the best care FOR me. Whether that might be in the guidelines of the government regulations or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryzflies 0 #108 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote But, I do NOT want the government involved in medical decision making. Why not? - private enterprise has had decades and you admit it can't fix the problems in the system it created. THAT is a good question with a simple answer. I do NOT trust the government. I do NOT want to rely on the government. I personally believe in PERSONAL autonomy and responsibility. And I can not reconcile with the government telling me as a physician what is cost effective care, nor telling me as a patient what I amd "entitled" to. I want the right to research my conditions and decide what is the best care FOR me. Whether that might be in the guidelines of the government regulations or not. I take it, then, that you ignore all FDA regulations and all epidemiological information coming from the CDC.If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #109 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote THAT is a good question with a simple answer. I do NOT trust the government. I do NOT want to rely on the government. I personally believe in PERSONAL autonomy and responsibility. And I can not reconcile with the government telling me as a physician what is cost effective care, nor telling me as a patient what I amd "entitled" to. I want the right to research my conditions and decide what is the best care FOR me. Whether that might be in the guidelines of the government regulations or not. I take it, then, that you ignore all FDA regulations and all epidemiological information coming from the CDC. Then you would be making incorrect assumption. A does not equal B here. But, you can read into it what ever you want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #110 March 8, 2009 20% are minorities? Wow! Where I live there IS no majority. I mean, you've got Asians - the most monior of the minorities - at probably 12%. Whites are a slight plurality. Diabetes is pretty rampant in about 40% of the populuation. You've got populations susceptible to diabetes. Some are susceptible to heart didease. Others to strokes. Still more to cancers. Others to different sorts of cancers. And on and on. When you picture a system that is devised to do 100 things its pretty feasible. But then 200 and 300 things. And as it does more and more it does less of it well. The 2000 WHO study, which is so highly touted by the socialist leanings, found that Americans were ranked #1 in "Level Responsiveness" - which is satisfaction. When considering how much the US health system seems troubled, the American public (as of 2000) was happier with their system than any country in the world. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MartinOlsson 0 #111 March 8, 2009 Quote20% are minorities? Wow! Where I live there IS no majority. I mean, you've got Asians - the most monior of the minorities - at probably 12%. Whites are a slight plurality. Diabetes is pretty rampant in about 40% of the populuation. You've got populations susceptible to diabetes. Some are susceptible to heart didease. Others to strokes. Still more to cancers. Others to different sorts of cancers. And on and on. When you picture a system that is devised to do 100 things its pretty feasible. But then 200 and 300 things. And as it does more and more it does less of it well. The 2000 WHO study, which is so highly touted by the socialist leanings, found that Americans were ranked #1 in "Level Responsiveness" - which is satisfaction. When considering how much the US health system seems troubled, the American public (as of 2000) was happier with their system than any country in the world. Diabetes, heart disease and stroke are common in all ethnic groups living in western countries. I know, I meet them all, every day, at work. 20 % is actually an national average of people born abroad. In America there may be more people (all people) with ancestors from abroad but I don't think 20% are born outside the US. Correct me if I'm wrong. All of your listed diseases are lifestyle related. My perception after visiting the US is that lifestyle is as homogeneous as where I live. The whole concept of publicly funded health care being unable to adapt to a heterogeneous population seems very far fetched. Regarding the satisfaction level, that is an valid point. I think this is because of the incentives. In a commercial system pleasing the customer might have stronger incentives, but on the other hand producing quality health care is stronger in the public one. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites carmenc 0 #112 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote THAT is a good question with a simple answer. I do NOT trust the government. I do NOT want to rely on the government. I personally believe in PERSONAL autonomy and responsibility. And I can not reconcile with the government telling me as a physician what is cost effective care, nor telling me as a patient what I amd "entitled" to. I want the right to research my conditions and decide what is the best care FOR me. Whether that might be in the guidelines of the government regulations or not. I take it, then, that you ignore all FDA regulations and all epidemiological information coming from the CDC. Then you would be making incorrect assumption. A does not equal B here. But, you can read into it what ever you want. What I read into it is inconsistency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 340 #113 March 8, 2009 QuoteAnd I can not reconcile with the government telling me as a physician what is cost effective care, nor telling me as a patient what I amd "entitled" to.That's fair. But, private insurance companies never try to tell you what they think is cost effective, or what they think their customers are entitled to? Aside from the relativly small clientelle who can afford out of pocket any treatment you may feel is best, isn't "cost effectiveness"always going to be an issue? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #114 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd there's always life expectancy too! Which is much more dependent upon lifestyle choices and heredity than medical efficacy. Funny how you always resort to "culture" when data show your preferences for both guns and healthcare lead to poor outcomes compared to other nations. So disprove it - I'll be interested to see what you blame America's spiraling problem with obesity and concommitant heart disease on, since diet, smoking, drinking, etc *ARE* lifestyle choices.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #115 March 8, 2009 QuoteWhat I read into it is inconsistency. As you chose to. And I owe you no explanation of my beliefs - whether you see them as inconsistent or not. I'm just giving MY opinion based on MY experience and personal beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #116 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd I can not reconcile with the government telling me as a physician what is cost effective care, nor telling me as a patient what I amd "entitled" to.That's fair. But, private insurance companies never try to tell you what they think is cost effective, or what they think their customers are entitled to? Aside from the relativly small clientelle who can afford out of pocket any treatment you may feel is best, isn't "cost effectiveness"always going to be an issue? Don Granted. But it's far easier for me to convince an insurance company to give one of my patients a trial of DepoLupron than it is to change the Medicaid standing on Zofran. Cost effectiveness is important. I do believe that. But sometimes you have to spend more for some patients in ways that aren't cost effective. Some on here claim that I don't see the forest for the trees.... I work with the "trees." I see her pain. I feel her anger and her frustration. I DO NOT LIKE IT. I do not trust the government to help this situation. -edited for grammar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #117 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd I raise you a list of the countries with the best cancer survival link, guess what you can survive cancer just as good at a fraction of the cost. From your link: Quote"The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%. " "The UK had 69.7% survival for breast cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer. " You were saying?Dropped into SC for a visit. OK. I'll start here. Infant mortality rate. USA sucks. Why is that? W/ the best care (a lot) money can buy? >http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/ Neonatal care in the US often results in live births of infants that would be stillborn in other countries. Unfortunatly, not all of those premature babies survive. Other countries have different methods for reporting live birth than the US. As an example, the former Soviet Union excluded any birth prior to 28 weeks gestational age or less than 1kg in weight or less than 35cm in length who died within 1 week of birth. Just like the WHO healthcare rankings, the "study" in the article you posted uses arbitrary and bogus criteria to rank efficacy.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #118 March 8, 2009 QuoteYou also are living in a dream world if you think that the USA has the best Healthcare in the world. Acording to the the World Health Organizations 2000 analysis of the world’s health systems. If you think the WHO study is showing who has the best healthcare, YOU are living in a dream world. Bogus attributes like "fairness of financial contribution" show nothing about how well the medical system of a country takes care of it's citizens. Responsiveness is the only criteria that shows things like wait times for treatment, innovation, etc. Look at the 'data' and see who is the top slot for that. Here's a hint - it's not France.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MartinOlsson 0 #119 March 8, 2009 Quote Neonatal care in the US often results in live births of infants that would be stillborn in other countries. Unfortunatly, not all of those premature babies survive. Other countries have different methods for reporting live birth than the US. As an example, the former Soviet Union excluded any birth prior to 28 weeks gestational age or less than 1kg in weight or less than 35cm in length who died within 1 week of birth. Just like the WHO healthcare rankings, the "study" in the article you posted uses arbitrary and bogus criteria to rank efficacy. Come on, even if those who made that study actively sought to make the US look bad, they couldn't have slanted it that much. And why is it that you believe all non US-studies or even liberal US-studies to be false. It's as if there isn't an honest man or woman in the world that isn't christian, conservative and US citizen. Defending American Infant survival levels just makes you look bad. Maybe Kbordson can enlighten us and tell us what she think about infant survival in the US compared to other countries. As a professional. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #120 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou also are living in a dream world if you think that the USA has the best Healthcare in the world. Acording to the the World Health Organizations 2000 analysis of the world’s health systems. If you think the WHO study is showing who has the best healthcare, YOU are living in a dream world. Bogus attributes like "fairness of financial contribution" show nothing about how well the medical system of a country takes care of it's citizens. Responsiveness is the only criteria that shows things like wait times for treatment, innovation, etc. Look at the 'data' and see who is the top slot for that. Here's a hint - it's not France. Yep, the WHO ranking is highly misleading. The study has been ripped to shreds in SC before, a couple years or so ago. Removing the criterion (paraphrased) "Does everyone pay the same amount for HC?" bumps the US to ~5th place IIRC. Looking at infant mortality in a consistent manner moves our crappy (and it is crappy in some ways) system up even further. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #121 March 8, 2009 QuoteCome on, even if those who made that study actively sought to make the US look bad, they couldn't have slanted it that much. And why is it that you believe all non US-studies or even liberal US-studies to be false. It's as if there isn't an honest man or woman in the world that isn't christian, conservative and US citizen. Wrong again - I never said the purpose was to make the US look bad. The WHO report starts with a set of assumptions that have the EFFECT of comparatively downranking the US healthcare system because of arbitrary criteria. QuoteDefending American Infant survival levels just makes you look bad. Maybe Kbordson can enlighten us and tell us what she think about infant survival in the US compared to other countries. As a professional. And your point would be, what? Disprove what I said, if you think it is false. I showed (correctly) that other countries use different criteria for reporting live birth, and that improved healthcare in the US has resulted in live births that may very well have been miscarriages in earlier years - both of which skew the data.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #122 March 8, 2009 QuoteCome on, even if those who made that study actively sought to make the US look bad, they couldn't have slanted it that much. And why is it that you believe all non US-studies or even liberal US-studies to be false. It's as if there isn't an honest man or woman in the world that isn't christian, conservative and US citizen. Defending American Infant survival levels just makes you look bad. Maybe Kbordson can enlighten us and tell us what she think about infant survival in the US compared to other countries. As a professional. /Martin I agree that defending our infant mortality rate does make us look even worse, which is why I haven't gone that route. But... he is correct in the difference in definitions. But... in Missouri, the definition of "live birth" includes those infants that either had a movement, a pulsating cord or any attempt at breathing. This includes those infants at 16weeks (ABSOLUTELY PRE-VIABLE) that have a gasp as it's delivered. Or a twitch of the leg on a 350g infant.... Those all count as "live birth." And I don't know if they were reporting neonatal deaths (babies born alive and dying during the first 27 days of life) or perinatal deaths (which is fetal deaths 20 or more week's gestation plus neonatal deaths.) Missouri DHSS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MartinOlsson 0 #123 March 8, 2009 QuoteWrong again - I never said the purpose was to make the US look bad. The WHO report starts with a set of assumptions that have the EFFECT of comparatively downranking the US healthcare system because of arbitrary criteria. And I never sited that report. And your point would be, what? Disprove what I said, if you think it is false. How could I possibly convince you when you regard a scientific study with a clear result is as irrelevant? And no, actually I'm not saying that European healthcare is immensely better than American. My main argument is that public healthcare can be more efficient than privately funded. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MartinOlsson 0 #124 March 8, 2009 QuoteI agree that defending our infant mortality rate does make us look even worse, which is why I haven't gone that route. But... he is correct in the difference in definitions. But... in Missouri, the definition of "live birth" includes those infants that either had a movement, a pulsating cord or any attempt at breathing. This includes those infants at 16weeks (ABSOLUTELY PRE-VIABLE) that have a gasp as it's delivered. Or a twitch of the leg on a 350g infant.... Those all count as "live birth." And I don't know if they were reporting neonatal deaths (babies born alive and dying during the first 27 days of life) or perinatal deaths (which is fetal deaths 20 or more week's gestation plus neonatal deaths.) Missouri DHSS Here the definition is "any breathing or other sign of life". So it seem pretty much the same. Thanks for the info though. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #125 March 8, 2009 where's a link? I haven't been able to find one on google and not to say that I don't trust your word... but being able to back up statements with the source is nicer. I should insert a Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 of 10 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
lawrocket 3 #110 March 8, 2009 20% are minorities? Wow! Where I live there IS no majority. I mean, you've got Asians - the most monior of the minorities - at probably 12%. Whites are a slight plurality. Diabetes is pretty rampant in about 40% of the populuation. You've got populations susceptible to diabetes. Some are susceptible to heart didease. Others to strokes. Still more to cancers. Others to different sorts of cancers. And on and on. When you picture a system that is devised to do 100 things its pretty feasible. But then 200 and 300 things. And as it does more and more it does less of it well. The 2000 WHO study, which is so highly touted by the socialist leanings, found that Americans were ranked #1 in "Level Responsiveness" - which is satisfaction. When considering how much the US health system seems troubled, the American public (as of 2000) was happier with their system than any country in the world. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartinOlsson 0 #111 March 8, 2009 Quote20% are minorities? Wow! Where I live there IS no majority. I mean, you've got Asians - the most monior of the minorities - at probably 12%. Whites are a slight plurality. Diabetes is pretty rampant in about 40% of the populuation. You've got populations susceptible to diabetes. Some are susceptible to heart didease. Others to strokes. Still more to cancers. Others to different sorts of cancers. And on and on. When you picture a system that is devised to do 100 things its pretty feasible. But then 200 and 300 things. And as it does more and more it does less of it well. The 2000 WHO study, which is so highly touted by the socialist leanings, found that Americans were ranked #1 in "Level Responsiveness" - which is satisfaction. When considering how much the US health system seems troubled, the American public (as of 2000) was happier with their system than any country in the world. Diabetes, heart disease and stroke are common in all ethnic groups living in western countries. I know, I meet them all, every day, at work. 20 % is actually an national average of people born abroad. In America there may be more people (all people) with ancestors from abroad but I don't think 20% are born outside the US. Correct me if I'm wrong. All of your listed diseases are lifestyle related. My perception after visiting the US is that lifestyle is as homogeneous as where I live. The whole concept of publicly funded health care being unable to adapt to a heterogeneous population seems very far fetched. Regarding the satisfaction level, that is an valid point. I think this is because of the incentives. In a commercial system pleasing the customer might have stronger incentives, but on the other hand producing quality health care is stronger in the public one. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #112 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote THAT is a good question with a simple answer. I do NOT trust the government. I do NOT want to rely on the government. I personally believe in PERSONAL autonomy and responsibility. And I can not reconcile with the government telling me as a physician what is cost effective care, nor telling me as a patient what I amd "entitled" to. I want the right to research my conditions and decide what is the best care FOR me. Whether that might be in the guidelines of the government regulations or not. I take it, then, that you ignore all FDA regulations and all epidemiological information coming from the CDC. Then you would be making incorrect assumption. A does not equal B here. But, you can read into it what ever you want. What I read into it is inconsistency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GeorgiaDon 340 #113 March 8, 2009 QuoteAnd I can not reconcile with the government telling me as a physician what is cost effective care, nor telling me as a patient what I amd "entitled" to.That's fair. But, private insurance companies never try to tell you what they think is cost effective, or what they think their customers are entitled to? Aside from the relativly small clientelle who can afford out of pocket any treatment you may feel is best, isn't "cost effectiveness"always going to be an issue? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #114 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd there's always life expectancy too! Which is much more dependent upon lifestyle choices and heredity than medical efficacy. Funny how you always resort to "culture" when data show your preferences for both guns and healthcare lead to poor outcomes compared to other nations. So disprove it - I'll be interested to see what you blame America's spiraling problem with obesity and concommitant heart disease on, since diet, smoking, drinking, etc *ARE* lifestyle choices.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #115 March 8, 2009 QuoteWhat I read into it is inconsistency. As you chose to. And I owe you no explanation of my beliefs - whether you see them as inconsistent or not. I'm just giving MY opinion based on MY experience and personal beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #116 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd I can not reconcile with the government telling me as a physician what is cost effective care, nor telling me as a patient what I amd "entitled" to.That's fair. But, private insurance companies never try to tell you what they think is cost effective, or what they think their customers are entitled to? Aside from the relativly small clientelle who can afford out of pocket any treatment you may feel is best, isn't "cost effectiveness"always going to be an issue? Don Granted. But it's far easier for me to convince an insurance company to give one of my patients a trial of DepoLupron than it is to change the Medicaid standing on Zofran. Cost effectiveness is important. I do believe that. But sometimes you have to spend more for some patients in ways that aren't cost effective. Some on here claim that I don't see the forest for the trees.... I work with the "trees." I see her pain. I feel her anger and her frustration. I DO NOT LIKE IT. I do not trust the government to help this situation. -edited for grammar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #117 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd I raise you a list of the countries with the best cancer survival link, guess what you can survive cancer just as good at a fraction of the cost. From your link: Quote"The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%. " "The UK had 69.7% survival for breast cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer. " You were saying?Dropped into SC for a visit. OK. I'll start here. Infant mortality rate. USA sucks. Why is that? W/ the best care (a lot) money can buy? >http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/ Neonatal care in the US often results in live births of infants that would be stillborn in other countries. Unfortunatly, not all of those premature babies survive. Other countries have different methods for reporting live birth than the US. As an example, the former Soviet Union excluded any birth prior to 28 weeks gestational age or less than 1kg in weight or less than 35cm in length who died within 1 week of birth. Just like the WHO healthcare rankings, the "study" in the article you posted uses arbitrary and bogus criteria to rank efficacy.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #118 March 8, 2009 QuoteYou also are living in a dream world if you think that the USA has the best Healthcare in the world. Acording to the the World Health Organizations 2000 analysis of the world’s health systems. If you think the WHO study is showing who has the best healthcare, YOU are living in a dream world. Bogus attributes like "fairness of financial contribution" show nothing about how well the medical system of a country takes care of it's citizens. Responsiveness is the only criteria that shows things like wait times for treatment, innovation, etc. Look at the 'data' and see who is the top slot for that. Here's a hint - it's not France.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MartinOlsson 0 #119 March 8, 2009 Quote Neonatal care in the US often results in live births of infants that would be stillborn in other countries. Unfortunatly, not all of those premature babies survive. Other countries have different methods for reporting live birth than the US. As an example, the former Soviet Union excluded any birth prior to 28 weeks gestational age or less than 1kg in weight or less than 35cm in length who died within 1 week of birth. Just like the WHO healthcare rankings, the "study" in the article you posted uses arbitrary and bogus criteria to rank efficacy. Come on, even if those who made that study actively sought to make the US look bad, they couldn't have slanted it that much. And why is it that you believe all non US-studies or even liberal US-studies to be false. It's as if there isn't an honest man or woman in the world that isn't christian, conservative and US citizen. Defending American Infant survival levels just makes you look bad. Maybe Kbordson can enlighten us and tell us what she think about infant survival in the US compared to other countries. As a professional. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #120 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou also are living in a dream world if you think that the USA has the best Healthcare in the world. Acording to the the World Health Organizations 2000 analysis of the world’s health systems. If you think the WHO study is showing who has the best healthcare, YOU are living in a dream world. Bogus attributes like "fairness of financial contribution" show nothing about how well the medical system of a country takes care of it's citizens. Responsiveness is the only criteria that shows things like wait times for treatment, innovation, etc. Look at the 'data' and see who is the top slot for that. Here's a hint - it's not France. Yep, the WHO ranking is highly misleading. The study has been ripped to shreds in SC before, a couple years or so ago. Removing the criterion (paraphrased) "Does everyone pay the same amount for HC?" bumps the US to ~5th place IIRC. Looking at infant mortality in a consistent manner moves our crappy (and it is crappy in some ways) system up even further. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #121 March 8, 2009 QuoteCome on, even if those who made that study actively sought to make the US look bad, they couldn't have slanted it that much. And why is it that you believe all non US-studies or even liberal US-studies to be false. It's as if there isn't an honest man or woman in the world that isn't christian, conservative and US citizen. Wrong again - I never said the purpose was to make the US look bad. The WHO report starts with a set of assumptions that have the EFFECT of comparatively downranking the US healthcare system because of arbitrary criteria. QuoteDefending American Infant survival levels just makes you look bad. Maybe Kbordson can enlighten us and tell us what she think about infant survival in the US compared to other countries. As a professional. And your point would be, what? Disprove what I said, if you think it is false. I showed (correctly) that other countries use different criteria for reporting live birth, and that improved healthcare in the US has resulted in live births that may very well have been miscarriages in earlier years - both of which skew the data.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #122 March 8, 2009 QuoteCome on, even if those who made that study actively sought to make the US look bad, they couldn't have slanted it that much. And why is it that you believe all non US-studies or even liberal US-studies to be false. It's as if there isn't an honest man or woman in the world that isn't christian, conservative and US citizen. Defending American Infant survival levels just makes you look bad. Maybe Kbordson can enlighten us and tell us what she think about infant survival in the US compared to other countries. As a professional. /Martin I agree that defending our infant mortality rate does make us look even worse, which is why I haven't gone that route. But... he is correct in the difference in definitions. But... in Missouri, the definition of "live birth" includes those infants that either had a movement, a pulsating cord or any attempt at breathing. This includes those infants at 16weeks (ABSOLUTELY PRE-VIABLE) that have a gasp as it's delivered. Or a twitch of the leg on a 350g infant.... Those all count as "live birth." And I don't know if they were reporting neonatal deaths (babies born alive and dying during the first 27 days of life) or perinatal deaths (which is fetal deaths 20 or more week's gestation plus neonatal deaths.) Missouri DHSS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MartinOlsson 0 #123 March 8, 2009 QuoteWrong again - I never said the purpose was to make the US look bad. The WHO report starts with a set of assumptions that have the EFFECT of comparatively downranking the US healthcare system because of arbitrary criteria. And I never sited that report. And your point would be, what? Disprove what I said, if you think it is false. How could I possibly convince you when you regard a scientific study with a clear result is as irrelevant? And no, actually I'm not saying that European healthcare is immensely better than American. My main argument is that public healthcare can be more efficient than privately funded. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites MartinOlsson 0 #124 March 8, 2009 QuoteI agree that defending our infant mortality rate does make us look even worse, which is why I haven't gone that route. But... he is correct in the difference in definitions. But... in Missouri, the definition of "live birth" includes those infants that either had a movement, a pulsating cord or any attempt at breathing. This includes those infants at 16weeks (ABSOLUTELY PRE-VIABLE) that have a gasp as it's delivered. Or a twitch of the leg on a 350g infant.... Those all count as "live birth." And I don't know if they were reporting neonatal deaths (babies born alive and dying during the first 27 days of life) or perinatal deaths (which is fetal deaths 20 or more week's gestation plus neonatal deaths.) Missouri DHSS Here the definition is "any breathing or other sign of life". So it seem pretty much the same. Thanks for the info though. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kbordson 8 #125 March 8, 2009 where's a link? I haven't been able to find one on google and not to say that I don't trust your word... but being able to back up statements with the source is nicer. I should insert a Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 of 10 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
GeorgiaDon 340 #113 March 8, 2009 QuoteAnd I can not reconcile with the government telling me as a physician what is cost effective care, nor telling me as a patient what I amd "entitled" to.That's fair. But, private insurance companies never try to tell you what they think is cost effective, or what they think their customers are entitled to? Aside from the relativly small clientelle who can afford out of pocket any treatment you may feel is best, isn't "cost effectiveness"always going to be an issue? Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #114 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd there's always life expectancy too! Which is much more dependent upon lifestyle choices and heredity than medical efficacy. Funny how you always resort to "culture" when data show your preferences for both guns and healthcare lead to poor outcomes compared to other nations. So disprove it - I'll be interested to see what you blame America's spiraling problem with obesity and concommitant heart disease on, since diet, smoking, drinking, etc *ARE* lifestyle choices.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #115 March 8, 2009 QuoteWhat I read into it is inconsistency. As you chose to. And I owe you no explanation of my beliefs - whether you see them as inconsistent or not. I'm just giving MY opinion based on MY experience and personal beliefs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #116 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd I can not reconcile with the government telling me as a physician what is cost effective care, nor telling me as a patient what I amd "entitled" to.That's fair. But, private insurance companies never try to tell you what they think is cost effective, or what they think their customers are entitled to? Aside from the relativly small clientelle who can afford out of pocket any treatment you may feel is best, isn't "cost effectiveness"always going to be an issue? Don Granted. But it's far easier for me to convince an insurance company to give one of my patients a trial of DepoLupron than it is to change the Medicaid standing on Zofran. Cost effectiveness is important. I do believe that. But sometimes you have to spend more for some patients in ways that aren't cost effective. Some on here claim that I don't see the forest for the trees.... I work with the "trees." I see her pain. I feel her anger and her frustration. I DO NOT LIKE IT. I do not trust the government to help this situation. -edited for grammar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #117 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd I raise you a list of the countries with the best cancer survival link, guess what you can survive cancer just as good at a fraction of the cost. From your link: Quote"The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%. " "The UK had 69.7% survival for breast cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer. " You were saying?Dropped into SC for a visit. OK. I'll start here. Infant mortality rate. USA sucks. Why is that? W/ the best care (a lot) money can buy? >http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/ Neonatal care in the US often results in live births of infants that would be stillborn in other countries. Unfortunatly, not all of those premature babies survive. Other countries have different methods for reporting live birth than the US. As an example, the former Soviet Union excluded any birth prior to 28 weeks gestational age or less than 1kg in weight or less than 35cm in length who died within 1 week of birth. Just like the WHO healthcare rankings, the "study" in the article you posted uses arbitrary and bogus criteria to rank efficacy.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #118 March 8, 2009 QuoteYou also are living in a dream world if you think that the USA has the best Healthcare in the world. Acording to the the World Health Organizations 2000 analysis of the world’s health systems. If you think the WHO study is showing who has the best healthcare, YOU are living in a dream world. Bogus attributes like "fairness of financial contribution" show nothing about how well the medical system of a country takes care of it's citizens. Responsiveness is the only criteria that shows things like wait times for treatment, innovation, etc. Look at the 'data' and see who is the top slot for that. Here's a hint - it's not France.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartinOlsson 0 #119 March 8, 2009 Quote Neonatal care in the US often results in live births of infants that would be stillborn in other countries. Unfortunatly, not all of those premature babies survive. Other countries have different methods for reporting live birth than the US. As an example, the former Soviet Union excluded any birth prior to 28 weeks gestational age or less than 1kg in weight or less than 35cm in length who died within 1 week of birth. Just like the WHO healthcare rankings, the "study" in the article you posted uses arbitrary and bogus criteria to rank efficacy. Come on, even if those who made that study actively sought to make the US look bad, they couldn't have slanted it that much. And why is it that you believe all non US-studies or even liberal US-studies to be false. It's as if there isn't an honest man or woman in the world that isn't christian, conservative and US citizen. Defending American Infant survival levels just makes you look bad. Maybe Kbordson can enlighten us and tell us what she think about infant survival in the US compared to other countries. As a professional. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #120 March 8, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou also are living in a dream world if you think that the USA has the best Healthcare in the world. Acording to the the World Health Organizations 2000 analysis of the world’s health systems. If you think the WHO study is showing who has the best healthcare, YOU are living in a dream world. Bogus attributes like "fairness of financial contribution" show nothing about how well the medical system of a country takes care of it's citizens. Responsiveness is the only criteria that shows things like wait times for treatment, innovation, etc. Look at the 'data' and see who is the top slot for that. Here's a hint - it's not France. Yep, the WHO ranking is highly misleading. The study has been ripped to shreds in SC before, a couple years or so ago. Removing the criterion (paraphrased) "Does everyone pay the same amount for HC?" bumps the US to ~5th place IIRC. Looking at infant mortality in a consistent manner moves our crappy (and it is crappy in some ways) system up even further. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #121 March 8, 2009 QuoteCome on, even if those who made that study actively sought to make the US look bad, they couldn't have slanted it that much. And why is it that you believe all non US-studies or even liberal US-studies to be false. It's as if there isn't an honest man or woman in the world that isn't christian, conservative and US citizen. Wrong again - I never said the purpose was to make the US look bad. The WHO report starts with a set of assumptions that have the EFFECT of comparatively downranking the US healthcare system because of arbitrary criteria. QuoteDefending American Infant survival levels just makes you look bad. Maybe Kbordson can enlighten us and tell us what she think about infant survival in the US compared to other countries. As a professional. And your point would be, what? Disprove what I said, if you think it is false. I showed (correctly) that other countries use different criteria for reporting live birth, and that improved healthcare in the US has resulted in live births that may very well have been miscarriages in earlier years - both of which skew the data.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #122 March 8, 2009 QuoteCome on, even if those who made that study actively sought to make the US look bad, they couldn't have slanted it that much. And why is it that you believe all non US-studies or even liberal US-studies to be false. It's as if there isn't an honest man or woman in the world that isn't christian, conservative and US citizen. Defending American Infant survival levels just makes you look bad. Maybe Kbordson can enlighten us and tell us what she think about infant survival in the US compared to other countries. As a professional. /Martin I agree that defending our infant mortality rate does make us look even worse, which is why I haven't gone that route. But... he is correct in the difference in definitions. But... in Missouri, the definition of "live birth" includes those infants that either had a movement, a pulsating cord or any attempt at breathing. This includes those infants at 16weeks (ABSOLUTELY PRE-VIABLE) that have a gasp as it's delivered. Or a twitch of the leg on a 350g infant.... Those all count as "live birth." And I don't know if they were reporting neonatal deaths (babies born alive and dying during the first 27 days of life) or perinatal deaths (which is fetal deaths 20 or more week's gestation plus neonatal deaths.) Missouri DHSS Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartinOlsson 0 #123 March 8, 2009 QuoteWrong again - I never said the purpose was to make the US look bad. The WHO report starts with a set of assumptions that have the EFFECT of comparatively downranking the US healthcare system because of arbitrary criteria. And I never sited that report. And your point would be, what? Disprove what I said, if you think it is false. How could I possibly convince you when you regard a scientific study with a clear result is as irrelevant? And no, actually I'm not saying that European healthcare is immensely better than American. My main argument is that public healthcare can be more efficient than privately funded. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MartinOlsson 0 #124 March 8, 2009 QuoteI agree that defending our infant mortality rate does make us look even worse, which is why I haven't gone that route. But... he is correct in the difference in definitions. But... in Missouri, the definition of "live birth" includes those infants that either had a movement, a pulsating cord or any attempt at breathing. This includes those infants at 16weeks (ABSOLUTELY PRE-VIABLE) that have a gasp as it's delivered. Or a twitch of the leg on a 350g infant.... Those all count as "live birth." And I don't know if they were reporting neonatal deaths (babies born alive and dying during the first 27 days of life) or perinatal deaths (which is fetal deaths 20 or more week's gestation plus neonatal deaths.) Missouri DHSS Here the definition is "any breathing or other sign of life". So it seem pretty much the same. Thanks for the info though. /Martin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #125 March 8, 2009 where's a link? I haven't been able to find one on google and not to say that I don't trust your word... but being able to back up statements with the source is nicer. I should insert a Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
