PDA

View Full Version : The US healthcare system is to blame



Qtec
10-10-2010, 03:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>US healthcare 'to blame' for poor life expectancy rates</span>



The US healthcare system is to blame for declines in the country's life expectancy ranking, a study suggests.

The Columbia University report rejects claims that factors such as obesity have shortened life-spans for Americans relative to other wealthy nations.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The study blames reliance on costly and fragmented specialised care, and calls for systemic reform.
</span>
Its release comes as President Barack Obama's healthcare reform remains a key issue in upcoming mid-term elections.

Higher costs

The study notes that in 1950, the US ranked fifth among leading industrialised nations for female life expectancy at birth, but only 46th in 2008.

It finds that US healthcare spending increased at nearly twice the rate of that in other wealthy nations between 1970 and 2002, with the increased spending corresponding with worsening survival rates relative to the other countries studied.

"In most cases, the relative US performance deteriorated from decade to decade," wrote authors Peter Muennig and Sherry Glied of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>They note the countries to which the US is compared - Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK - all provide universal healthcare coverage.</span>

Factors such as differing obesity, smoking, road accident and murder rates were taken into account in the study.
'Meaningful reform'

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>The US spends far more on healthcare than any other country as a percentage of gross domestic product</span>, the study finds.

"We speculate that the nature of our health care system - specifically, its reliance on unregulated fee-for-service and specialty care - may explain both the increased spending and the relative deterioration in survival that we observed," the authors wrote.

"If so, meaningful reform may not only save money over the long term, it may also save lives."

The authors said those aspects of the US health system contributed to unnecessary medical procedures, poor communication between doctors and higher rates of medical errors </div></div>

link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11502938)

Watch Ron Johnson claim <span style='font-size: 14pt'> "we have the finest HC system in the world." </span>

link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/karoli/russ-feingold-schools-ron-johnson-affordabl)


Q

pooltchr
10-10-2010, 07:54 AM
Life expectancy rates are useless without investigating underlying issues. If people's life expectancy were based strictly on health related issues, your arguements might have some validity. But what those figures doen't consider is why people die. Let's consider three different citizens. The first succumbs to cancer at the age of 80. Maybe the healthcare system added 5 or 6 years to their life. Our next citizen was killed in a car crash when a drunk illegal alien driving the wrong way down the interstate hit him head on. He was 50 years old. Our third citizen was a young man who lived in a high crime inner city community. He was killed by a stray bullet during a gang fight on the corner. He was 20 years old.

If we just use these 3 as an example, the life expectancy in our country is only 50 years. Do we blame that on the healthcare system that actually helped someone add years to their life, or is it the healthcare system's fault that we have people being killed by drunk drivers or street violence?

I've heard this arguement for years, but the numbers don't tell the whole story.

Steve

Gayle in MD
10-10-2010, 08:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"We speculate that the nature of our health care system - specifically, its reliance on unregulated fee-for-service and specialty care - may explain both the increased spending and the relative deterioration in survival that we observed," the authors wrote.

"If so, meaningful reform may not only save money over the long term, it may also save lives."

The authors said those aspects of the US health system contributed to unnecessary medical procedures, poor communication between doctors and higher rates of medical errors </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000">Sadly, we have forum memberfs on here who are too porpagandized to grasp the facts on why we have one of the worst Health Care Costs VS. Results, in the world.

They'd prefer the same results that we get when Firemen walk away and let a house burn down, based on money earned.

What they want, is what we had before President Obama, thousand upon thousands dying because they were dropped by HC insurance, thugs, and the strides, though not yet perfected, that the Democratic majority worked so hard to insure, a Health Care System, affordable and available for all, not just for the wealthy, are ignored, because it is beyond the comprehension of the "Without Conscience" right, who don't seem to be able to grasp even the most thoroughly documented, and rational, simple principles of critical thinking.

Health Care should not be a "For Profit" endeavor, period!

G. </span>

pooltchr
10-10-2010, 08:32 AM
Sadly, we have forum members who refuse to educate themselves, and rely on their party to think for them.

Steve

Qtec
10-10-2010, 08:28 PM
Denial.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Life expectancy rates are useless without investigating underlying issues. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Columbia University report rejects claims that <span style='font-size: 14pt'><u>factors such as</u> </span>obesity have shortened life-spans for Americans relative to other wealthy nations. </div></div>

If you had actually read the post with an open mind you would have seen this link to the study. link (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.2010.0073v1#B2)

You really think The Columbia University would publish this report 'without investigating underlying issues.' !

Q

pooltchr
10-10-2010, 10:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You really think The Columbia University would publish this report 'without investigating underlying issues.' !

Q </div></div>

Actually, yes I do.

Steve

Qtec
10-11-2010, 04:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You really think The Columbia University would publish this report 'without investigating underlying issues.' !

Q </div></div>

Actually, yes I do.

Steve </div></div>

You see, I am right. When information comes out that goes against your own bias beliefs, you dismiss it. That's called denial.

Q

Q

Sev
10-11-2010, 06:46 AM
People living poor lifestyles rather than healthy ones contribute to an early demise more than anything else. The health care system has nothing to do with it in this sense.

I assume you are all aware we have a serious obesity problem in this nation?
This single problem is the leading cause of a multitude of health related issues.

pooltchr
10-11-2010, 07:09 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You really think The Columbia University would publish this report 'without investigating underlying issues.' !

Q </div></div>

Actually, yes I do.

Steve </div></div>

You see, I am right. When information comes out that goes against your own bias beliefs, you dismiss it. That's called denial.

Q

Q </div></div>

That makes me a skeptic.
If you believe it, just because they tell you to believe it, you are the one in denial.

Past actions lead me to question the research of our academics. Just look at the global warming fraud if you need another example.
These people live for their government grants. If they can produce "evidence" of a problem, they can get more government money to work on a solution.

Follow the money, Q.

Steve

sack316
10-11-2010, 04:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Life expectancy rates are useless without investigating underlying issues. If people's life expectancy were based strictly on health related issues, your arguements might have some validity. But what those figures doen't consider is why people die. Let's consider three different citizens. The first succumbs to cancer at the age of 80. Maybe the healthcare system added 5 or 6 years to their life. Our next citizen was killed in a car crash when a drunk illegal alien driving the wrong way down the interstate hit him head on. He was 50 years old. Our third citizen was a young man who lived in a high crime inner city community. He was killed by a stray bullet during a gang fight on the corner. He was 20 years old.

If we just use these 3 as an example, the life expectancy in our country is only 50 years. Do we blame that on the healthcare system that actually helped someone add years to their life, or is it the healthcare system's fault that we have people being killed by drunk drivers or street violence?

I've heard this arguement for years, but the numbers don't tell the whole story.

Steve </div></div>

good call steve... from the study itself:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Second, we did not use comparative data on specific causes of death. Some researchers have argued, for instance, that the United States does much better than other nations in terms of spending on some types of preventive care and cancer care, leading to increased survival.11 Comparative data on specific causes of death over time could provide additional insights into health system performance. </div></div>

So yes, they do acknowledge this within the results of the study, but such data was not necessarily reflected in the study.

Sack

sack316
10-11-2010, 04:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Follow the money, Q.

Steve </div></div>

I went ahead and did that too:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This study was funded by a grant from the Commonwealth Fund. [Published online October 7, 2010.] </div></div>

I became wary when my google search started. As I typed in "commonwealth fund".... the auto complete guess that first came up as a selection before hitting search was "commonwealth fund liberal"! Go try it yourself!

I'll let everyone else do their own research on them and those who run it. I will give one spoiler, the Co-Chairman (along with his wife) was a democratic member of the NY State Assembly for 18 years. Read some stuff from the Commonwealth Fund and what they are about... everyone can decide for themselves what kind of study they would fund.

Sack

pooltchr
10-11-2010, 08:41 PM
So of course, any study funded by them is going to be completely impartial.

The whole arguement on the quality of healthcare in this country is bogus. We have some of the most advanced technology in the world available, and some of the best healthcare facilities in the world right here. If our life expectancy rate is lower than other countries, it could very well be due to the fact that we live in our cars from the time we are 16. Or because there is a very low life expectancy for young black males in this country (Not being racists...check the stats if you don't believe it)

But, if you want to bash our system, you can create numbers to support it. I have no doubt that the source data was selected to produce a specific result.

Again, I have grown ever more skeptical of academic studies in this country. When the professors and colleges depend on government grants for funding, their studies are no more reliable that the unemployment figures the government hands out each month, or the projected cost of Obamacare.

It's all garbage, and only a fool would accept it at face value.

Steve

sack316
10-12-2010, 02:05 PM
Welp, seems this thread got pretty quiet all of the sudden /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack