Why Private Health Care doesn't work

#476
#476
BigPapaVol said:
Life expectancy and infant mortality are every bit as much about lifestyle as they are care, but I know you don't want to be bothered with weaknesses in your "data analysis." (by the way, I laughed at calling it analysis.)
Click to expand...

Further evidence to elaborate on BMFPV's truthful point: Memphis/Shelby Co has one of the worst, if not the worst, infant mortality rates in the US.

It does not matter how excellent the staff in the area is, the biggest issue is socioeconomic, nutrition and utilizing the care that is already available.

But I guess we can just continue to hand out the free shiz and hope it improves.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#477
#477
It's pretty simple - if Gibbs posts something it is "proof". If you post something refuting Gibbs it is 1) propaganda, 2) the result of propaganda, 3) actual proof of his point if you look at it backwards.
 
#478
#478
MG1968 said:
don't know, don't care

as is the case with most topics here, your anecdotal story doesn't constitute a crisis for me
Click to expand...

Just comparing anecdote for anecdote. :hi:

I certainly wasn't fishing for sympathy from you.
 
#479
#479
fl0at said:
I would wager that there were reasons for the wait. Was he put on a strict diet in the mean time? I assume you are from a major area, so limitations were not in place, but he might have had to wait simply because his risk was less, and he was able to wait.

Was it a stent or bypass?

Cardiothoracic surgeon field has been thinning over the last 6+ years, and there are generally unfilled residencies every year. Compensation has decreased, and stenting has become more and more common, though this is starting to swing towards bypass, again. The field is moving toward equilibrium, according to many.

But, how would NHS change the wait time, when all else (numbers of physicians in the field, immediate risk of the inidividual and other circumstances) remained the same?

Are you suggesting that NHS will somehow reduce the time under the knife, or the work load on the CT? Or, are you implying that NHS will instantly increase the number of available ORs in a given Hospital?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

No, I'm suggesting I have evidence there are "waiting lines" in the private sector too. In addition, most of the NHS waiting line stories are usually just that - individual anecdotes. I just thought I'd counter with a tasty little anecdote of my own. I require no sympathy, nor does stepdad.

Or they're stories of the NHS system itself - incentivized to for efficiency - looking to improve their waiting times.

I haven't even busted out the story of my best man's mother, who got run over in Paris, and what happened to her once she got back to the States. Made her a True Believer in the NHS, I can tell you.

@BPV - I know those metrics don't mean much, except they're, you know, the metrics by which we judge civilization. :facepalm:

And let's see, oh yes, doctors believe those are pretty damn good metrics to judge a service on.
 
#480
#480
So Gibbs would you rather have NHS of Britain coverage for yourself and family or BlueCross/BlueShield?
 
#481
#481
utgibbs said:
Oh, I'm well aware of the propaganda.

Why did my stepfather have to wait two months for major heart surgery? With Bill Frist turbo-charged insurance?
Click to expand...

who knows since there are lots of reasons surgery is postponed/not done. I couldn't get knee surgery right away because conditions weren't right.

and by the way, I hurt my knee around the same time a friend did in Canada and was released from PT before he could even get the MRI. Lines exist
 
Last edited:
#483
#483
utvolpj said:
who knows since there are lots of reasons surgery is postponed/not done. I couldn't get knee surgery right away because conditions weren't right.

and by the way, I hurt my knee around the same time a friend did in Canada and was released from PT before he could even get the MRI. Lines exist
Click to expand...

Lines exist everywhere. Just like I said.

I don't know anyone who has had a heart opeation on an NHS system, but I can tell you, they're more like to survive in these NHS systems:

How does US healthcare compare to the rest of the world? | News | guardian.co.uk

And those cost savings! Wowsa! AND, the US gov't STILL pays out a lot! It's just flippin' ideological insanity. It's a no-brainer, but the superminority opinion on a handful of VN posters don't see the 800lbs gorilla in the room.
 
#485
#485
so a 6mo line compared to the couple of weeks (and only 1 hour for the mri) I had to wait is ok with you?

and are you really trotting out the WHO stuff again?
 
#486
#486
utvolpj said:
so a 6mo line compared to the couple of weeks (and only 1 hour for the mri) I had to wait is ok with you?

and are you really trotting out the WHO stuff again?
Click to expand...

Sure it is. This is part of reaping the benefits of your greed.
 
#487
#487
utgibbs said:
And those cost savings! Wowsa! AND, the US gov't STILL pays out a lot! It's just flippin' ideological insanity. It's a no-brainer, but the superminority opinion on a handful of VN posters don't see the 800lbs gorilla in the room.
Click to expand...

I see more government spending (which is a bad thing in a lot of people's minds), and I see statistics that correlate in such a way that, yea, one would expect A from B.

I'm not sold on the GDP expenditure, either, because I don't know how NHS systems cover the cost of residency. NHS systems have more primary care physicians, right? Residency in the US is provided by Medicare. Reduce the number of residency options, and you can reduce GDP %, I would assume.

But, the end goal of a national health care program in the US is to increase the number of primary care and family practice physicians. I would also assume this is to reduce the GDP %.

Of course, decreasing residency programs will increase the time necessary to see certain specialized care givers, as there will be fewer.

As to the statistics. Yea, our population is overweight. Everyone knows that and everyone also knows the health risks (especially cardiovascular health) that comes with being overweight. Logically, if you have A (overweight) then you have B (increased CV deaths). That shouldn't shock anyone, and has everything to do with individual and lifestyle habits, not medicine and care.

The number of physicians per 10,000 people was shocking, though, which makes me wonder if they include in the "Doctor" grouping only MDs/DOs, or also dentists, pharmacists, podiatrists, etc.

If it is strictly MD/DO to MBChB or whatever, then yea, I'm shocked.
 
#488
#488
Even with 40 million uninsured our cancer survival rates are significantly higher than the UKs. That should tell you something right there.
 
#489
#489
volinbham said:
Even with 40 million uninsured our cancer survival rates are significantly higher than the UKs. That should tell you something right there.
Click to expand...

doesn't. Infant mortality, life expectancy, happiness and income disparity are the only measures that work, period.
 
#490
#490
volinbham said:
It's pretty simple - if Gibbs posts something it is "proof". If you post something refuting Gibbs it is 1) propaganda, 2) the result of propaganda, 3) actual proof of his point if you look at it backwards.
Click to expand...

Also, his opinion on all matters is always shared by the majority, despite everyone disagreeing with him.
 
#491
#491
volinbham said:
Even with 40 million uninsured our cancer survival rates are significantly higher than the UKs. That should tell you something right there.
Click to expand...

when i was in italy last summer i talked to a local who was very pleased of her cancer treatment. it only took her 2 months to get treatment, she didn't have to go anywhere, and it barely cost her a dime.

two things stood out to me:
a) no chance in hell i'd wait 2 months to get treatment in the US (my sister got treatment for a similar type within 2 days of the positive test)

b) no chance in hell i'd want treatment from the backwater doctors likely to be in her home town.
 
#494
#494
BigPapaVol said:
oh, well you said it, so there's proof.

Let's go with the happiness evaluations, as those are paramount in governmental decision making.
Click to expand...

You should just stop. In no way shape or form have you ever even attempted to make a case for your ideas. Instead you just piggyback off others cherry-picked data while ignoring any contradicting data. I don't know why I bother, but how in the Hell is cancer survival rate more important than life span?
 
#495
#495
utvolpj said:
so a 6mo line compared to the couple of weeks (and only 1 hour for the mri) I had to wait is ok with you?

and are you really trotting out the WHO stuff again?
Click to expand...

The "WHO stuff" isn't fragments of Pete Townsend's guitar - it's among the best data in the world on the subject. An entire library of data - all of it supporting my primary meme - exists without any ties to the WHO. In fact, if you look at it, a place like Germany, with a large private component, ends up paying more than the single-payer style systems. Taiwan did a world-wide study on health services, and adopted our Medicare model (applied to the whole country, of course).

If you take BPV's line and suggest, "it's lifestyle choice!" you are basically saying a health service doesn't matter in the least, and we would still be bug-eyed delirious paying what we pay for our health care relative to the other systems.

As for waiting lines, I've given nothing but anecdotes. You've given nothing but anecdotes. I've still got my "Best Man's Mom in Paris" anecdote trump card.

Given the NHS services have better metrics at lower costs the waiting line hooey evidently doesn't matter a whole hell of a lot.
 
Last edited:
#496
#496
Ed12111 said:
how in the Hell is cancer survival rate more important than life span?
Click to expand...

mortality statistics are much less directly tied to the quality of HC than cancer survival.

I provided data showing that if you look at the HC impact on mortality rates the US does very well - it other facts (e.g. murder rate) that lower the mortality statistics.
 
#497
#497
/thread

ed and gibbs have now tagteamed and performed their patented finishing move the "So There!"

as Jim Ross would say, "Oh the humanity!!!"
 
#498
#498
volinbham said:
mortality statistics are much less directly tied to the quality of HC than cancer survival.

I provided data showing that if you look at the HC impact on mortality rates the US does very well - it other facts (e.g. murder rate) that lower the mortality statistics.
Click to expand...

Cancer survival like every other metric has dozens of variables. I'm assuming that even after playing with the data, the US does "very well" and not the best. The point remains, if the US's system which is different than most other nations healthcare is so much better then we should be the very best. Especially considering we are the wealthiest nation and the most technologically advanced. Most of you are claiming these other nations healthcare is such a mess, but can't find a lick of evidence to support it.
 
#500
#500
Ed12111 said:
Cancer survival like every other metric has dozens of variables. I'm assuming that even after playing with the data, the US does "very well" and not the best. The point remains, if the US's system which is different than most other nations healthcare is so much better then we should be the very best. Especially considering we are the wealthiest nation and the most technologically advanced. Most of you are claiming these other nations healthcare is such a mess, but can't find a lick of evidence to support it.
Click to expand...

Most other nations don't have our: 1) melting pot culture, which carries with it all sorts of genetic and culture issues pertaining to lifestyle, nutrition, education, etc; 2) extremely high levels of obesity attributed to our "rich" lifestyle, which brings with it increased risk of any number of ailments, not limited to a) increased diabetes rates which leads to end system organ damage or b) cardiovascular damage from overeating, lack of exercise and terrible nutrition; 3) lifestyle choices that allow for, and often encourage, destruction and addiction to one's body at an early age; 4) a country with any number of varying geographic differences due to the width and height of this country.

Obviously, people in Florida differ from simple allergy issues than people from Oregon. The issues can definitely be more complex due to geographic location, and this country as several.

Furthermore, cancer mortality rates... anh, debatable usefulness. Incidence and prevalence of disease would be what I would be interested in seeing.

Incidence is new cases. If they have high incidence, then there is a disconnect with education about and effects of various habits.

Prevalence is all cases. If they have low prevalence, then odds are, people are dying from the disease.

I think it would be more appropriate to have low incidence (not a lot of new cases) with high prevalence (would mean that those with the disease are living longer lives, which means better medicine and care).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top