why are you against universal healthcare?

heheheh. Concidering i dont think anyone on the right even READS my posts im going to go off topic a bit here:p

You know maybe concervitisium is a religion or a faith because it never seems to stand up to empirical evidence and unlike a science when empirical evidence shows a scientific theory to be incorect then it is modifided to acount for the new evidence. There is amble data to show that the conservitive view point is wrong yet i have never seen it modifided or abandoned collectivally. Concidering this is a science site people HERE (especially those like Mad who proffess to be from a science based background) should be more willing to put there theories to the test. Instead we have the duck and weave routine as shown by read only's comment "The data from other countries is irrelivent because we are talking about the US". To a certain point he is correct, scientific studies can be subject to cultural bias which is why you must always be critical before automatically apliying it directly to a different culture. For instance the study in the US which found "getto ambulances" (ie the gansters droping off gun shot victoms at A&E doors with no treatment at all) have better health outcomes than EMTs. This was pointed out to me by a friend in St John to which my responce was "yes but before you aplie that to Australia you have to concider the fact that US EMTs arnt trained to anywhere near the same standed as Australian Paramedics, further more EMT is a min wage job which means that the EMTs are probably working at least one extra job on top of being an EMT which increases fatigue and there for lowers efficancy".

However (to get back on topic) as Cochrane shows, the wider the cultural groups you take your evidence from the more it becomes directly universally aplicable. OECD statistics arnt from one country, they arnt the US v canada or the US v UK alone, they take data from ALL there member countries and its consistantly shown that the US ranks close to (or at) the bottom time and again. It cant be avoided by simply saying "oh but the US is a large spread out country" well you cant get much further from metro health care than the center of Australia (actually thats a lie, Alice springs actually has quite a good public hospital, its the areas further out from the actual center which have distance problems:p), or whatever other excuses the right likes to come up with


Lastly a side note: It always slightly annoys me when the right uses that word, conservitive in politics should really be equivilant to death because "concervitive" simply means "no change". The right is just as quick to push for change as the left is (as they should, any polly who simply wants things to stand as they are with NO change might as well be dead politically)

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:

...Health does not just mean the physical well-being of the individual but refers to the social, emotional, spiritual and cultural well-being of the whole community...
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 dont see the problem with it at all, i think its a good think why is it bad? i just want to hear peoples opinions on it the only people that are complaining that i can see are the employed healthy people
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.
 
michael said:
In certain populations of people I think it works very well.
Such as every Western industrialized first world country, except one.

So what's wrong with that one?
 
your joking right?

Why does a differring opinion have to be a joke?

Infant mortality rates, life expentancy are BOTH indicators of efficasy of health AS A WHOLE.

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.
 
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 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.

The US is also the most obese country in the world.

I thought that Australia had passed us by on that measure?
 
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.

Your right, thanks. I knew I was forgetting something so I added window dressings to the car crashes.:D

I thought that Australia had passed us by on that measure?

And I thought the US was at the top; not according to this list...

November 25, 2009

1) American Samoa, 93.5 percent (of population that's overweight)
2) Kiribati, 81.5 percent
3) U.S., 66.7 percent
4) Germany, 66.5 percent
5) Egypt, 66 percent
6) Bosnia-Herzegovina, 62.9 percent
7) New Zealand, 62.7 percent
8) Israel, 61.9 percent

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/commerce/091125/obesity-epidemic-fattest-countries

The common fat-o-meter among nations is body mass index (BMI), a calculation based on a person’s height and weight. The World Health Organization defines “overweight” as an individual with a BMI of 25 or more and “obese” as someone with a BMI of 30 or higher. (To see how you weigh in, use this calculator by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute.)

Today, one in three of the world’s adults is overweight and one in 10 is obese. By 2015, WHO estimates the number of chubby adults will balloon to 2.3 billion — equal to the combined populations of China, Europe and the U.S.

The rise in obesity coincides with increased modernization and a worldwide explosion in the availability of highly processed foods. In the past 50 years, more of us have started driving to work instead of walking, opening a box of mac ‘n cheese instead of cooking, pushing computer keys instead of plows and taking the elevator rather than the stairs.

“The combination of these factors is driving obesity all over the world,” said James Hospedales, coordinator for prevention and control of chronic diseases at the Pan American Health Organization. “What’s really alarming is that it’s not just the middle aged, it’s children and adolescents. That’s new.”

In honor of Thanksgiving, a U.S. holiday dedicated to eating until we can’t breathe, we decided to take a look at the Top 10 Fattest Countries in the world, based on national health surveys WHO compiled between 2000 and 2008.
 
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.

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
 
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.

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.

Health is not simply what happens once you walk through the doors of a hospital, that is only the smallest portion.

Agreed, thats called responsiveness the overall effectiveness comes next, in the treatment and quality of subsiquent care.

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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!

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.
 
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.

Actually, they do.
 
Back
Top