Your empirical evidence does not take into account the response and overall effectiveness of the health care administered, thats also a criteria that belongs in your list. I can only guess that little fact was missing from your list because the US is #1?:shrug: IMO, it really trumps all those statistics by focusing on healthcare quality and not how fairly it is distributed. Adding any social-economical criteria to rate health care quality and you imediately dilute the absolute results, which should be, the response and effectiveness of treatment for the sick and diseased.
your joking right? Infant mortality rates, life expentancy are BOTH indicators of efficasy of health AS A WHOLE. That means not just "can you stich this arm up" or "can you give me a new nose" its about community health, law enforcement, Traffic enforcement, OH&S saftey, Mental health, drug and alchole treatment, imunisation programes, education, housing primary health and primary health care (which are different), SES, Sanitation, nutriction, Human rights ect ect. How many hospitals you have is probably the single worst indicator to use for the health of a population, disease rates, life expectancy, quality of life indicators, and infant mortality rates are used because these measure the health of the whole population which is something the US just dont seem able to comprehend. After all, as the old saying goes "its better to have a fence at the top of the cliff than an ambulance at the bottom". Health is a whole of goverment issue, the health departments are only the smallest portion of this. For instance the WHO defines health as "a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health This means that its about alot more than "did the doctor cure your cold". Aborigionals go even further in definining Health: http://www.who.int/bulletin/bulletin_board/83/ustun11051/en/ THIS is why universal health care is so important, until goverments take on "Health" as one of there core responcabilities a holistic "whole of goverment" aproach to health becomes impossable because its "not there responcability"
I actually have had both. Universal option health care (which I was happy with) and Private health care (which I was somewhat happy with). In certain populations of people I think it works very well. Like Australia where there a small number of people with a huge number of resources. Or Japan where Japanese Nationality means everyone is "Japanese". Will it work in the USA? I can't see it happening. That said, we do pay for health care one way or the other. I think the best approach would be a massive increase in trained doctors and more hospitals. I afraid as soon as we help people we'll end up with a massive welfare system similar to the 3 generation welfare system we already have.
Why does a differring opinion have to be a joke? The results from those criteria are based on stats from different countries, that use different definitions of stillbirth. Some use length, weight, gestation period etc. to label a premature infant that shows signs of life, but later passes, as a stillbirth. I don't know what definition Austrailia uses, but previous to '00, when the WHO released their global healthcare ratings, many states in the US have loosened their definition closer to those found in the EU. Some states still use the strictest definition: complete expulsion from the mother, regardless of weight, length, gestation period etc., with the placenta and umbilical cord still attached, if the baby shows any signs of life it is recorded as a live birth. If the sign of life lasted for just 1 second that state would report that as an infant mortality. In other states and countries if the infant did not meet the weight and/or length and/or gestation levels then the birth is labeled as a stillbirth, even though there was a sign of life. So your really comparing apples to oranges and since the WHO compiled the data prior to some states loosening their definitions, it actually speaks volumes of how good the pediatric care is in the US considering the high death rate in premature live births. As far as the life expectancy criteria, if you toss out the deaths caused by transportation accidents ie, auto accidents, plane crashes, train wrecks etc., the results would be much different. The US is also the most obese country in the world. While they may be small indicators, the findings are skewed because there are aspects of different cultures that are not accounted for. This makes them difficult to compare, unless your standard allows comparing apples to oranges and calling it empirical evidence. When you look at the absolute quality of heathcare, responsivenesss and overall effectiveness are real indicators. Infant mortality and life expectancy stats are just window dressings used for propaganda.
The plane crashes don't make a difference, and train wrecks would actually favor the US. But the car crashes are a different story. The other big factor to equalize for is guns. If you exclude auto accidents and firearm deaths, the US supposedly jumps to the front of the pack in life expectancy. I thought that Australia had passed us by on that measure?
Your right, thanks. I knew I was forgetting something so I added window dressings to the car crashes.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And I thought the US was at the top; not according to this list...
I wonder if you read my whole post. Car carshes, suicideds and gun deaths are just as much a part of "Health" as TB, Meningitis and the flu. Health is not simply what happens once you walk through the doors of a hospital, that is only the smallest portion. Its the diease prevention the doctor does with you to help you lose weight, its the OH&S saftey checks work safe (or equivilant) does on your place of employment, its the Graphic TV adds and random breath testing that the Traffic Acident Commission and the police do to lower the road toll, its ensuring that all people have access to clean drinking water and healthy food (and the inspections, the goverment funding ect which goes into this) ect ect. All these things which fall under the definition of "Health promotion" are JUST as if not MORE important than the doctors and the hospitals. After all, prevention is better than cure
Car crashes are unintentional/accidents that have no bearing on quality of health care. As far as suicides and gun deaths, I would be interested to see what steps the Australian government has taken and the results to improve their rates of suicide and gun death. Agreed, thats called responsiveness the overall effectiveness comes next, in the treatment and quality of subsiquent care. We have all those things, what many do not want is a government that forces you to buy healthcare.
We want people in the wealthiest country in the world to die for lack of health care. That's civilization. Every man for themselves is what characterizes a great society.
Using that line of thought, you would also have to agree that the US became the wealthiest country in the world by following the every man for himself principle.
yeah except that line falls apart when you look at the greatest expansion of wealth in this country happened when we were furthest from those ideals.
I'm not, I think it's GREAT!! I have never had to worry about paying any medical bills. It doesn't matter if you are working or not, everyone gets the same treatment.
Exactly. It's GREAT. Morons that do nothing for society get FREE treatment whereas rich entrepreneurs are left picking up the tab. OH, and it means more government control and more market interference, and lower salaries for doctors! IT'S GREAT!
This happened in the post war period when the top marginal tax rate was between 70% and 90%. Republican mythology just doesn't hold up to the facts.
Good job comparing two totally different situations. The growth experienced during those eras was not due to "high taxes" (high taxes can't create growth; use some common sense, 'kay?). It was due to emerging markets and increased industrialization.
So you think that everyone who is unemployed is a moron, feeding off the system? What about a father that gets laid off from his job? What about a mother who decides to stay home with her kids? What about someone who is self employed (like myself) ? You don't think those ppl deserve to have free medical treatment?
I don't think anyone deserves free anything. They have to work for it. Let us not forget the words of John Smith, "He who does not work, shall not eat!" That being said, I am not against helping the needy in their time of need; but, why through government bureaucracy, interference, and inefficiency? If you are truly so interested in helping the father laid off from his job, then go and help him yourself. And get your neighbors, and let them get their neighbors; charity is much nobler than welfare, and you don't sacrifice your independence with it.
