"The United States has the worst healthcare"

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

TexasFight

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
330
Reaction score
1
"U.S. Scores dead last again in healthcare study"
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...mesticNews&feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

How does the Commonwealth Fund define "quality of care"? After looking at their criteria, I think its an unfair to say the US is "dead" last. Many minute measures of quality are given the same weight as a very important measure of quality. Some of these differences are a matter of opinion, so I encourage you all to agree or disagree with me on the things I point out below:

The commonwealth fund put together this interactive website that details their decision making:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/site_docs/slideshows/MirrorMirror/MirrorMirror.html


What the United States ranked 6th or 7th place in:

Effective Care Measures:

  • "Physicians reporting it is easy to print out a list of patients who are due or over or overdue for tests or preventative care"
  • "Has chronic condition and did not follow recommended care or treatment plan because of cost"
  • "Physicians reporting it is easy to print out a list of patients by diagnosis"
  • "Physicians reporting it is easy to print out a list of all medications taken by individual patients, including those prescribed by other doctors"
Safe Care Measures:

  • "Given the wrong medication or wrong dose by a doctor, nurse, hospital, or pharmacist in the past 2 years.
  • "Given incorrect results for a diagnostic or lab test in past 2 years"
  • "Experienced delays in being notified about abnormal test results in past 2 years"
Coordinated Care:

  • "Have a regular doctor"
  • "Percent for whom specialist did not have medical history"
  • "When PCPs refer to specialist, they always or often receive a report back with all relevant health information"
  • "Percent of PCPs reporting the amount of time they spend coordinating care for patients is a major problem"
  • "Time was often or sometimes wasted because medical care was poorly organized"
Patient-Centered Measure

  • "Doctor always explains things in a way you can understand" ** Note: This is odd because we ranked 2nd in "Doctor often gives clear instructions about symptoms when to seek further care".
  • "With same doctors 5 years or more"
  • "Regular doctor knows important information about patient's medical history"
If I colored the text red, I think they those points of comparison (which to my understanding are given the same weight as every other point of comparison) are redundant. Many of these points could be consolidated, which would place the US at 5th or 6th place.

Things in purple disappointed me.


Now this is what we ranked 1st or 2nd in:


Effective Care Measures:

  • "Receives reminders for preventative/follow-up care"
  • "Doctor asked if emotional issues were affecting health"
  • "Received advice from doctor on weight, nutrition, or exercise"
  • "Patients with hypertension who have had cholesterol checked in past year"
  • "PCPs that routinely provide patients with chronic diseases written instructions"
Safe Care Measures:

None

Coordinated Care Measures:

  • "Know whom to contact for questions about condition or treatment"
  • "Receive written plan for care after discharge"
  • "Hospital made arrangements for follow up visits with a doctor or other HC professional when leaving the hospital"
Patient Centered Care

  • "Patient can communicate with regular place of care by email"
  • "Received clear instructions about symptoms to watch for and when to seek further care when leaving the hospital"
  • "Regular doctor always or often encouraged you to ask questions"
  • "Regular doctor always or often gives clear instructions about symptoms, when to seek further care"

There is nothing about cancer survival rates, ability to treat severe diseases, or research spending - i.e. areas where the US spends LOTS of money. Had they taken these into consideration, I think (in combination with consolidating the red points above), the US would be in 3rd or 4th place. That still gives us lots of room for improvement. Still, after looking at this website, I can say that the US should NOT be ranked last in this comparison.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Bump

You guys better share your opinions! ::shakes fist in threatening manner::
Otherwise this post is 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back! :(
 
Last edited:
Bump

You guys better share your opinions! ::shakes fist in threatening manner::
Otherwise this post is 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back!

Nobody say anything...for teh lulz :thumbup:
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The president of the non-profit think tank that authored this "study" is hardly unbiased. She has a clear political agenda and I don't see how any rational person can read such subjective drivel and make actual policy decisions based on it. The whole study is based on surveys. How can surveys objectively measure health care delivery? All of these ranking studies place significant emphasis in the scoring system on socialization of medical care. In our case we can't possibly win because the scoring deck is stacked against the U.S. from the beginning. The only point of this study is to create buzzwords and catchphrases for talking heads and politicians to use to steer the U.S. towards socialized medicine.
 
The president of the non-profit think tank that authored this "study" is hardly unbiased. She has a clear political agenda and I don't see how any rational person can read such subjective drivel and make actual policy decisions based on it. The whole study is based on surveys. How can surveys objectively measure health care delivery? All of these ranking studies place significant emphasis in the scoring system on socialization of medical care. In our case we can't possibly win because the scoring deck is stacked against the U.S. from the beginning. The only point of this study is to create buzzwords and catchphrases for talking heads and politicians to use to steer the U.S. towards socialized medicine.


Just to play devil's advocate here, this isn't the first such study with similar results. By almost every significant measure, the healthcare in the US under performs when compared to most European countries. Yes, there are flaws in essentially every study, but when this many of them say the same thing it might be time to stop fighting the results and instead ask "what can we do to make things better?"
 
That's because they all place a heavy emphasis on the level of socialization in healthcare delivery. That automatically places us at a disadvantage. If you believe that we should socialize healthcare then the results of these studies are probably right up your alley. If not, they don't tell us anything we don't already know. Our healthcare is obviously expensive. Socializing it alone isn't going to fix that, however.
 
Patients' and physicians' assessments might be affected by their experiences and expectations, which could differ by country and culture.
This is from the methodology page of the press release..er...study.
 
That's because they all place a heavy emphasis on the level of socialization in healthcare delivery. That automatically places us at a disadvantage. If you believe that we should socialize healthcare then the results of these studies are probably right up your alley. If not, they don't tell us anything we don't already know. Our healthcare is obviously expensive. Socializing it alone isn't going to fix that, however.


I don't think that's true, unless you define "access to care" as being "socialization" by default. Indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality also aren't so hot in the US, and I personally think that's unacceptable.
 
Are there any other arbitrary rankings we can draw conclusions from?!?!?!?!?!?!?
 
The president of the non-profit think tank that authored this "study" is hardly unbiased. She has a clear political agenda and I don't see how any rational person can read such subjective drivel and make actual policy decisions based on it. The whole study is based on surveys. How can surveys objectively measure health care delivery? All of these ranking studies place significant emphasis in the scoring system on socialization of medical care. In our case we can't possibly win because the scoring deck is stacked against the U.S. from the beginning. The only point of this study is to create buzzwords and catchphrases for talking heads and politicians to use to steer the U.S. towards socialized medicine.

I agree. I think that is where some important ppl want to take this coutry. Socialism. The slightly better looking sister of Nazism haha
 
I think research should definitely be used as a metric in this study. But it still wouldn't change too much. We did so bad in so many categories. And you just were looking at "quality of care." I agree I don't think we're dead last in quality of care. But every other metric was pretty damning.

It seems like cost is causing most of our problems. Medications/Appointments are so cost prohibitive that it is detrimental to our health.

Too many people don't have a PCP. They use the ED. Specialists dont have a full history. Continuity of care gets blown to peices. Making care more expensive.

We have great preventive care measures. But if the patients aren't utilizing them bc of cost, it's falling on deaf ears. We are ranked 1st 1st 2nd, and 2nd (respectively) in discharge plans of care, clear instructions for symptoms to watch for, when to seek care, and plans for followups after discharge. But 7th for re-hospitilization after discharge.
 
Our costs are out of control. We don't need a propaganda pamphlet masquerading as a scientific study to tell us that. We're obviously spending too much on healthcare. Where is the study that identifies where all of this excess money is going to? That would actually identify the problem rather than telling us we need to socialize which, by itself, doesn't fix any problems with quality of care, only access.
 
Yes, there are flaws in essentially every study, but when this many of them say the same thing it might be time to stop fighting the results and instead ask "what can we do to make things better?"

Here's a hint: what we are moving towards is not "making things better".

I don't think that's true, unless you define "access to care" as being "socialization" by default. Indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality also aren't so hot in the US, and I personally think that's unacceptable.

You aren't aware of the flaws in calculating these statistics, are you?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Our costs are out of control. We don't need a propaganda pamphlet masquerading as a scientific study to tell us that. We're obviously spending too much on healthcare. Where is the study that identifies where all of this excess money is going to? That would actually identify the problem rather than telling us we need to socialize which, by itself, doesn't fix any problems with quality of care, only access.


I haven't seen a nicely compiled comprehensive article, we there is information. A huge problem is the way insurance is structured - without insurance, you pay up to ten times as much for the same care. However, with insurance, there is almost no disincentive to overmedicate, so people do stupid things like go to the ER with a slight cough. As was mentioned above, there's also a huge number of Americans without a PCP, who then use the ER as their primary source of care because they can't be refused. This, in turn, jacks up insurance rates there to make up for the cost.

Fear of litigation is a problem as well - not necessarily in direct costs, but in unnecessary CYA tests. As much as I love imaging, it is overutilized and overpriced in this country.

There have been some models that have worked pretty well in the US, such as that at Mayo. Essentially, going away from a fee-for-service to a salary based system seems to improve care while reducing costs.

I think there are a few easy things that could be done (easy to implement, probably not easy politically). One example: I'd love to see a ban on advertising pharmaceuticals entirely. I don't think there's any good that can come from having patients come in and request drugs by name when they have no idea how they work or what they actually do.
 
You aren't aware of the flaws in calculating these statistics, are you?


Yeah, there are flaws in all of these things. I mentioned that. However, when every single study shows that the US is nowhere near a leader in terms of healthcare, it's very legitimate to ask "why not?"

Here's a hint: what we are moving towards is not "making things better".

Ok, we get your political affiliations, way to give an insightful comment there.
 
There isn't single person I've ever spoken to who honestly believes the U.S. is #1 in healthcare. Some people will say that we have the "best system in the world", but then you pry a little more (if offline) or look into their posts (if on SDN) and you find out they complain about the system A LOT. They might not think that the current administration is taking things in the right direction (usually these folks seem to think there was some golden era of medicine we need to get back to, rather than evolving this system into something entirely new...which might even be the case) but they do believe we're messed up.

If anyone tells you there isn't a lot of room for improvement, they are lying to your face.

We just disagree with each other on what the best direction is.

Finally, telling an American they might be last in anything is a recipe for either disaster or hilarity.
 
You aren't going to add anything of substance to the thread, are you?

What do you want me to say that hasn't already been said? Governments bankrolling healthcare seems nice but is NOT sustainable. Case in point: Medicare/Medicaid. This isn't an issue of politics, it's an issue of common sense. State funded healthcare is nice on paper, but it's hardly a model you can point to as cost saving.

And reading through this study, most of these "measures" seem pretty superfluous and don't really have anything to do with healthcare.
 
What do you want me to say that hasn't already been said? Governments bankrolling healthcare seems nice but is NOT sustainable. Case in point: Medicare/Medicaid. This isn't an issue of politics, it's an issue of common sense. State funded healthcare is nice on paper, but it's hardly a model you can point to as cost saving.

And reading through this study, most of these "measures" seem pretty superfluous and don't really have anything to do with healthcare.


I will actually say that Medicare/Medicaid is the best thing the government has done for healthcare. High approval rate among seniors ( I guess they must love their socialist medicine). Now if they can fix the rest of healthcare(ergo, drive out insurance companies) we'll be set.

It's pretty simple, if you want to end the spiraling cost of health care , then put an end to private insurance. Any other plan is a bandaid and Obama fell short on this one.
 
I will actually say that Medicare/Medicaid is the best thing the government has done for healthcare. High approval rate among seniors ( I guess they must love their socialist medicine). Now if they can fix the rest of healthcare(ergo, drive out insurance companies) we'll be set.

It's pretty simple, if you want to end the spiraling cost of health care , then put an end to private insurance. Any other plan is a bandaid and Obama fell short on this one.


Don't you know that suggesting anything other that pure capitalism means you're a Nazi? Godwin's law and all that.


On a serious note, anybody that thinks our current system is working hasn't been paying attention.
 
It's pretty simple, if you want to end the spiraling cost of health care , then put an end to private insurance. Any other plan is a bandaid and Obama fell short on this one.
Great theory but it has far from ended the spiraling cost of healthcare in socialized systems.
 
On a serious note, anybody that thinks our current system is working hasn't been paying attention.
I completely agree. There are, however, questions yet to be answered. What is or is not working? How sustainable is a socialized system? Countries with socialized medicine are struggling with the rising cost of healthcare. The system in the U.S. is hardly a free market. When was the last time you called around to find a cheaper primary care physician? How about a price check on a major surgery? We're disconnected from the cost of care because we expect insurance companies (or governments) to cover the tab.
 
I completely agree. There are, however, questions yet to be answered. What is or is not working? How sustainable is a socialized system? Countries with socialized medicine are struggling with the rising cost of healthcare. The system in the U.S. is hardly a free market. When was the last time you called around to find a cheaper primary care physician? How about a price check on a major surgery? We're disconnected from the cost of care because we expect insurance companies (or governments) to cover the tab.


I agree, healthcare in the US is absolutely not a free market. However, I'm not convinced that healthcare ever could be an efficient free market. Some services, sure. Elective procedures, non-emergency surgeries, fine. Anything urgent is going to fail though: people aren't going to shop around when their husband is having a heart attack. Even if they had the time, most people don't think rationally when they're scared.

The economic problem is this: we need a way to make health consumers feel some financial burden for their individual decisions, yet not in a way that bankrupts them or discourages them from getting routine checkups, etc.
 
I certainly agree the US has pretty bad health care in terms of outcomes as a function of cost, but I don't think I'd agree that the system is inherently bad. No one's brought this up yet but there's a huge issue of values. Most other countries (and the authors of these studies) heavily value equity in health care - Americans don't. Hence, studies are stacked wrt indicators that favor equitable distribution of health care. I grew up in Canada and the idea that one person can get better care than another is anathema to most of the people here.

A huge part of the reason this happens is not directly money I would argue: it is freedom of choice. In most other countries, you dish out a ton of money (well, unless you're poor to begin with) to the government, and are given access to decent/good health care in return. In the US, you have the freedom to choose not to spend money on insurance, or to spend money on crappier insurance, or more money on better insurance.

As a result, a lot of people get crappier care than they could afford if they gave up some other luxury items for it. It doesn't mean you don't have access to equal quality care (if not better), but it means you have the freedom to choose not to, which, (unfortunately in my mind) a lot of people do choose. However, I think people should have the freedom to screw themselves over if they choose.

Think of it like this as an analogy (that most of you can probably identify with as univ students). Let's say taking the bus takes $3. Imagine you're comparing two schools on access to public transit. School A incorporates a mandatory $100 fee on all students and gives them all a bus pass as a result. School B has no such policy. If you just compare access to public transit by asking students from A and B things like "How often do you not take public transit due to cost?" and measure how often students take public transit, I guarantee you School A would win. Doesn't mean it's a better policy though (whether it is or not is, of course, also a subject of debate, depending on your values), but you guys get the analogy I hope.

P.S. Watching Italy and Slovakia as I write this: WTF Slovakia gonna beat Italy???
 
I completely agree. There are, however, questions yet to be answered. What is or is not working? How sustainable is a socialized system? Countries with socialized medicine are struggling with the rising cost of healthcare. The system in the U.S. is hardly a free market. When was the last time you called around to find a cheaper primary care physician? How about a price check on a major surgery? We're disconnected from the cost of care because we expect insurance companies (or governments) to cover the tab.


You are right. Socialized countries are also facing rising health care cost problem but compared to us, their problems are laughable. Which other industrialized country spends 15% of their GDP on health care? I found this nice chart:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/runaway-health-care-costs-were-1/
health_spend.png


As you can see, our health care cost has doubled over the last 30 years while most of the other countries on the list were able to control theirs.
If the trend holds, by 2034 healthcare will occupy 30% of our GDP. The consequence of that will be enormous. I'm having a heartburn just thinking of it. Remember, you are paying more but getting less in return. It's one thing if you're spending that kind of money but getting good results. It's quite another if you're spending more money just to *maintain* the status quo.
 
I certainly agree the US has pretty bad health care in terms of outcomes as a function of cost, but I don't think I'd agree that the system is inherently bad. No one's brought this up yet but there's a huge issue of values. Most other countries (and the authors of these studies) heavily value equity in health care - Americans don't. Hence, studies are stacked wrt indicators that favor equitable distribution of health care. I grew up in Canada and the idea that one person can get better care than another is anathema to most of the people here.

A huge part of the reason this happens is not directly money I would argue: it is freedom of choice. In most other countries, you dish out a ton of money (well, unless you're poor to begin with) to the government, and are given access to decent/good health care in return. In the US, you have the freedom to choose not to spend money on insurance, or to spend money on crappier insurance, or more money on better insurance.

As a result, a lot of people get crappier care than they could afford if they gave up some other luxury items for it. It doesn't mean you don't have access to equal quality care (if not better), but it means you have the freedom to choose not to, which, (unfortunately in my mind) a lot of people do choose. However, I think people should have the freedom to screw themselves over if they choose.

Think of it like this as an analogy (that most of you can probably identify with as univ students). Let's say taking the bus takes $3. Imagine you're comparing two schools on access to public transit. School A incorporates a mandatory $100 fee on all students and gives them all a bus pass as a result. School B has no such policy. If you just compare access to public transit by asking students from A and B things like "How often do you not take public transit due to cost?" and measure how often students take public transit, I guarantee you School A would win. Doesn't mean it's a better policy though (whether it is or not is, of course, also a subject of debate, depending on your values), but you guys get the analogy I hope.

P.S. Watching Italy and Slovakia as I write this: WTF Slovakia gonna beat Italy???


I don't think it's necessarily true that Americans don't value equity in health care. Rich Americans don't typically value health care, but they're not the majority of the population here, simply the loudest. There is a huge portion of the population that simply can't afford any of what the US health care system has to offer.

If you want to use your bus analogy, our system is more like this: the school offers a bus pass that gives unlimited bus rides for the month for $100, or you can get an individual ride for $10. Clearly, if you're going to use the bus with any frequency, it makes sense to get a pass, and person A gets a pass. However, person B is completely poor and can't afford the $100, so he decides to walk or bike everywhere he goes to save money. That's fine, until he breaks both of his legs when he's hit by a car while biking to work. He then has to pay $10 each way for his bus rides, and can't get his $100 monthly pass now because he's ineligible (you can only buy it during the previous month). He now has to decide between either not working or paying $20/day to get there for the rest of the month, racking up a bill of $400 for the rest of the month. He's kind of screwed either way now. Meanwhile, since the guy on the monthly pass has been riding the bus everywhere without paying any additional money, the bus company is now the bus company is now hemorrhaging money. To compensate, they raise the per-ride rate to $15, screwing guy B even a little bit more. Now he's well over $500 in the hole for a month in bus rides.

Granted, since person B couldn't afford the $100 pass anyhow, he's going to default on the $500 loan he took out from the bus company to pay for his fares, and the bus company will turn around and pass that on to their users the next month. Good times were had by all.
 
"U.S. Scores dead last again in healthcare study"
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...mesticNews&feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

How does the Commonwealth Fund define "quality of care"? After looking at their criteria, I think its an unfair to say the US is "dead" last. Many minute measures of quality are given the same weight as a very important measure of quality. Some of these differences are a matter of opinion, so I encourage you all to agree or disagree with me on the things I point out below:

The commonwealth fund put together this interactive website that details their decision making:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/site_docs/slideshows/MirrorMirror/MirrorMirror.html


What the United States ranked 6th or 7th place in:

Effective Care Measures:

  • "Physicians reporting it is easy to print out a list of patients who are due or over or overdue for tests or preventative care"
  • "Has chronic condition and did not follow recommended care or treatment plan because of cost"
  • "Physicians reporting it is easy to print out a list of patients by diagnosis"
  • "Physicians reporting it is easy to print out a list of all medications taken by individual patients, including those prescribed by other doctors"
Safe Care Measures:

  • "Given the wrong medication or wrong dose by a doctor, nurse, hospital, or pharmacist in the past 2 years.
  • "Given incorrect results for a diagnostic or lab test in past 2 years"
  • "Experienced delays in being notified about abnormal test results in past 2 years"
Coordinated Care:

  • "Have a regular doctor"
  • "Percent for whom specialist did not have medical history"
  • "When PCPs refer to specialist, they always or often receive a report back with all relevant health information"
  • "Percent of PCPs reporting the amount of time they spend coordinating care for patients is a major problem"
  • "Time was often or sometimes wasted because medical care was poorly organized"
Patient-Centered Measure

  • "Doctor always explains things in a way you can understand" ** Note: This is odd because we ranked 2nd in "Doctor often gives clear instructions about symptoms when to seek further care".
  • "With same doctors 5 years or more"
  • "Regular doctor knows important information about patient's medical history"
If I colored the text red, I think they those points of comparison (which to my understanding are given the same weight as every other point of comparison) are redundant. Many of these points could be consolidated, which would place the US at 5th or 6th place.

Things in purple disappointed me.


Now this is what we ranked 1st or 2nd in:


Effective Care Measures:

  • "Receives reminders for preventative/follow-up care"
  • "Doctor asked if emotional issues were affecting health"
  • "Received advice from doctor on weight, nutrition, or exercise"
  • "Patients with hypertension who have had cholesterol checked in past year"
  • "PCPs that routinely provide patients with chronic diseases written instructions"
Safe Care Measures:

None

Coordinated Care Measures:

  • "Know whom to contact for questions about condition or treatment"
  • "Receive written plan for care after discharge"
  • "Hospital made arrangements for follow up visits with a doctor or other HC professional when leaving the hospital"
Patient Centered Care

  • "Patient can communicate with regular place of care by email"
  • "Received clear instructions about symptoms to watch for and when to seek further care when leaving the hospital"
  • "Regular doctor always or often encouraged you to ask questions"
  • "Regular doctor always or often gives clear instructions about symptoms, when to seek further care"

There is nothing about cancer survival rates, ability to treat severe diseases, or research spending - i.e. areas where the US spends LOTS of money. Had they taken these into consideration, I think (in combination with consolidating the red points above), the US would be in 3rd or 4th place. That still gives us lots of room for improvement. Still, after looking at this website, I can say that the US should NOT be ranked last in this comparison.

I don't have time to write an in-depth response, but I guarantee you that US has be most technologically advanced and the most accessible healthcare on the planet.
Just accept it and move on. Don't waste your time on reading garbage like this 'study'. And don't mention that during your interview.
 
You are right. Socialized countries are also facing rising health care cost problem but compared to us, their problems are laughable. Which other industrialized country spends 15% of their GDP on health care? I found this nice chart:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/runaway-health-care-costs-were-1/
health_spend.png


As you can see, our health care cost has doubled over the last 30 years while most of the other countries on the list were able to control theirs.
If the trend holds, by 2034 healthcare will occupy 30% of our GDP. The consequence of that will be enormous. I'm having a heartburn just thinking of it. Remember, you are paying more but getting less in return. It's one thing if you're spending that kind of money but getting good results. It's quite another if you're spending more money just to *maintain* the status quo.

Kid, stop quoting Krugman, because even your grandma won't believe the nonsense he's spewing.
 
Kid, stop quoting Krugman, because even your grandma won't believe the nonsense he's spewing.


I agree that you need to take Krugman with a heaping spoonful of salt, but he's not known for lying about facts. He even provided a source for these if you so much as glanced at the article.

Another source giving very similar information: http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=45110

The ad hominem attack here doesn't have any bearing on the point being made.
 
I actually wrote a paper analyzing this from an international perspective. I looked @ panel data of OECD nations (1990-2009). I regressed various potential determinants of healthcare expenditure (population, GDP, pharma, age of population, chronic illnesses, private/public spending mix, public health, etc) on healthcare expenditure per capita and found that only public health mattered.
 
Just accept it and move on. Don't waste your time on reading garbage like this 'study'. And don't mention that during your interview.


:rolleyes:

The anti-intellectualism is astounding.
 
:rolleyes:

The anti-intellectualism is astounding.

I've been in medicine for over a decade. I've been in hospitals of several other OECD countries. I have talked and worked with with hundreds of foreign doctors, read thousands of articles, and authored a few. I draw my opinion from experience, not from a survey-based study, which is not even written by a doctor.

After you are around for a while, you will get the feel of what is a garbage study.
 
:rolleyes:

The anti-intellectualism is astounding.

Oh dear god. I've been here for years and the last thing I'd do is start an argument with Nilf. Especially with a comment like that....


:idea:
 
My theory -

It's the staffing. Stop hiring ****ty staff and it looks like a lot of the issues would be resolved.:eek:
 
I will actually say that Medicare/Medicaid is the best thing the government has done for healthcare. High approval rate among seniors ( I guess they must love their socialist medicine). Now if they can fix the rest of healthcare(ergo, drive out insurance companies) we'll be set.

It's pretty simple, if you want to end the spiraling cost of health care , then put an end to private insurance. Any other plan is a bandaid and Obama fell short on this one.

Is this why Canada is having trouble paying for their public system?
 
I've been in medicine for over a decade. I've been in hospitals of several other OECD countries. I have talked and worked with with hundreds of foreign doctors, read thousands of articles, and authored a few. I draw my opinion from experience, not from a survey-based study, which is not even written by a doctor.

After you are around for a while, you will get the feel of what is a garbage study.

"Draw my opinion from experience" is anecdotal evidence.

"Been in hospitals in several other OECD countries" is not a stirring sample size.

If you really think the United States healthcare system is absolutely the best in the world, I hope you stop coming here to complain - CONSTANTLY - about it. Seriously, stop. Otherwise you're just contradicting yourself.
 
I don't think it's necessarily true that Americans don't value equity in health care. Rich Americans don't typically value health care, but they're not the majority of the population here, simply the loudest. There is a huge portion of the population that simply can't afford any of what the US health care system has to offer.

Umm...what?
 
"Draw my opinion from experience" is anecdotal evidence.

"Been in hospitals in several other OECD countries" is not a stirring sample size.

If you really think the United States healthcare system is absolutely the best in the world, I hope you stop coming here to complain - CONSTANTLY - about it. Seriously, stop. Otherwise you're just contradicting yourself.

Dude, seriously...

USA has be most technologically advanced and the most accessible healthcare.

At the moment, the costs incurred in pursuit of career in medicine significantly outweigh the benefits.

These two statements do NOT contradict one another.


Concerning the garbage 'study' posted above:
It's based on freaken SURVEYS. It's NOT done by an MD. It's sponsored by a leftist think tank lead by a well known socialist. It's GARBAGE.


BTW, you would be surprised how much of medicine is based on 'anecdotal evidence', AKA experience.
 
Last edited:
Most studies, in general, say our healthcare system is failed and failing. That's simply because, THEY'RE ALL BIASED AND THEIR METHODOLOGY IS COMMUNIST BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
Dude, seriously...

USA has be most technologically advanced and the most accessible healthcare.

At the moment, the costs incurred in pursuit of career in medicine significantly outweigh the benefits.

These two statements do NOT contradict one another.


Concerning the garbage 'study' posted above:
It's based on freaken SURVEYS. It's NOT done by an MD. It's sponsored by a leftist think tank lead by a well known socialist. It's GARBAGE.


BTW, you would be surprised how much of medicine is based on 'anecdotal evidence', AKA experience.

I'm going to go ahead and point out that you're clearly biased in the opposite direction, so everything you say should be considered suspect, by your own logic.

Tu quoque fallacies all around!
 
:rolleyes:

The anti-intellectualism is astounding.

I'm gonna throw this out there. All of your posts are at least slightly inflammatory and, in many cases, obnoxious to boot. It's not anti-intellectualism, you just said that to start a fight--anti-intellectualism is anything supporting this POS study. (although the %GDP stuff is spot on AFAIK)
 
Do Canadians have co-pays? I'm guessing they have problems because there is no cost associated with visiting the physician.

Or because the govt bankrolls their system and it's becoming difficult for the Canadian government to foot the bill for rising healthcare spending.
 
I'm gonna throw this out there. All of your posts are at least slightly inflammatory and, in many cases, obnoxious to boot. It's not anti-intellectualism, you just said that to start a fight--anti-intellectualism is anything supporting this POS study. (although the %GDP stuff is spot on AFAIK)

"Just trust me, I know what I'm talking about. And don't read garbage studies." exhibits a complete lack of intellectual curiosity. And you can't gauge what is "garbage" or not without reading it.
 
This:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/05/business/05scene.html

But the American health care system may be performing better than it seems at first glance. When it comes to medical innovation, the United States is the world leader. In the last 10 years, for instance, 12 Nobel Prizes in medicine have gone to American-born scientists working in the United States, 3 have gone to foreign-born scientists working in the United States, and just 7 have gone to researchers outside the country.

The six most important medical innovations of the last 25 years, according to a 2001 poll of physicians, were magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography (CT scan); ACE inhibitors, used in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure; balloon angioplasty; statins to lower cholesterol levels; mammography; and coronary artery bypass grafts. Balloon angioplasty came from Europe, four innovations on the list were developed in American hospitals or by American companies (although statins were based on earlier Japanese research), and mammography was first developed in Germany and then improved in the United States. Even when the initial research is done overseas, the American system leads in converting new ideas into workable commercial technologies.

The world is taking advantage of our heavy spending on research, and huge demand national for medical innovation.
 
:rolleyes:

The anti-intellectualism is astounding.

"Draw my opinion from experience" is anecdotal evidence.

"Been in hospitals in several other OECD countries" is not a stirring sample size.

If you really think the United States healthcare system is absolutely the best in the world, I hope you stop coming here to complain - CONSTANTLY - about it. Seriously, stop. Otherwise you're just contradicting yourself.

Haha wow, I haven't been here long, but I sure hope this place isn't full of duds like this guy. Anti-intellectualism? :laugh:

First of all, wisdom gained from experience is not the same as anecdotal evidence. Even if it were, anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence or opinions based on naivety. Secondly, do you know what a sample size is? You should take a stats class. And good job with your oversimplification there.

The attending knows more about medicine than you, morning. Go worship Obama/socialism somewhere else.
 
Thanks for any information/links you guys posted - keep them coming!

I was not aware that the President of the commonwealth (Karen Davis) is biased towards a more socialist system. I started looking around the commonwealth fund website and nearly all the information they provide is based off surveys that question opinions. I can't find much information with hard statistics. I understand that they want to improve health care in the US, but I'll no longer trust their statistics on the same level as even a regular newspaper.

I also learned the morning needs to chill.
 
Haha wow, I haven't been here long, but I sure hope this place isn't full of duds like this guy. Anti-intellectualism? :laugh:

First of all, wisdom gained from experience is not the same as anecdotal evidence. Even if it were, anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence or opinions based on naivety. Secondly, do you know what a sample size is? You should take a stats class. And good job with your oversimplification there.

The attending knows more about medicine than you, morning. Go worship Obama/socialism somewhere else.

A) I'm a girl

B) I would have stopped reading after "lol go worship Obama lol" but fortunately that was the end

C) http://trololololololololololo.com/
 
It's hard to think that the U.S. is dead last when sooo many people from Canada come to the U.S. for medical care. I work EMS in Michigan, and about twice a week I am transporting someone from the hospital back to their home in Canada or vice versa. People would rather spend their money than get it for free apparently.
 
Top