Health Care - was Best Mac Browser?
in [Mac Applications]
|
Prev: convert zvr audio files
Next: convert zvr audio files
From: Warren Oates on 27 Dec 2009 08:55 In article <doraymeRidThis-51EB85.08544427122009(a)news.albasani.net>, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Geez, Mark, you sure know how to depress our little gathering here! It's prob'ly my fault. Still, I don't have a real problem with euthanasia, or suicide either. That's not what that "death panel" fear mongering is about though. -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: Warren Oates on 27 Dec 2009 09:00 In article <271220090425085791%aeiou(a)mostly.invalid>, Mark Conrad <aeiou(a)mostly.invalid> wrote: > Now if you really think you need a nanny to > control you, I believe you should practice > a little ahead of time. I guess that's why you Yanks (and other nations, too, it's true, but it started in the USA) have let your entertainment industry lawyer scumbags take over your constitution and and your telecommunications networks and your government for that matter. Discuss. Show your work. -- Very old woody beets will never cook tender. -- Fannie Farmer
From: William Clark on 27 Dec 2009 09:43 In article <hh6bsp$dh9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > William Clark wrote: > > Which, I suppose, is why the US spends almost 50% more per person on > > health care than other western countries with national health care > > systems, but still winds up at 30th+ in the world's life expectancy > > table. Well behind the same Europeans countries. > > According to the National Geographic chart I mentioned in another post, > it's way more than 150% of the average. Then again, the life expectancy > (according to the same chart) is about average. Indeed it is - I was being gentle with the poor soul.
From: William Clark on 27 Dec 2009 09:47 In article <KqGdnVbp2OCfyKrWnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <hh6bsp$dh9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > Wes Groleau <Groleau+news(a)FreeShell.org> wrote: > > > William Clark wrote: > > > Which, I suppose, is why the US spends almost 50% more per person on > > > health care than other western countries with national health care > > > systems, but still winds up at 30th+ in the world's life expectancy > > > table. Well behind the same Europeans countries. > > > > According to the National Geographic chart I mentioned in another post, > > it's way more than 150% of the average. Then again, the life expectancy > > (according to the same chart) is about average. > > Both life expectancy and infant mortality seem to be skewed by > societal problems that are really outside the purview of medicine. For > instance, life expectancy figures are impacted more by a 15 year old > killed in a drive by than keeping a geezer alive another year or so. If > you look at the rate of teenage pregnancies in developed countries, > those with highest rates of pregnancy are in the lower tiers of infant > mortality. Largely because teenage pregnancies have a higher level of > low and extremely low birth weight babies. This is independent of who > does the insurance program. The birth figures are futher skewed because > there are major differences between countries on what constitutes a live > birth. Some don't count babies born below a certain weight at live > births and generally don't try to rescusitate. In the US, if they take > anything resembling a first breath they are given full bore treatment > despite very higher failure rates. > When I hit the lottery, the first thing I am going to do is to pay > for a study that tries to control for non-medical societal influences > (such as the above) on these measures. Will be interesting to see how > the US comes out. Ah, the standard wingnut dogma to try to get out of the life expectancy trap. Sorry, it doesn't wash. The data are from the UN and WHO and are filtered for difference in reporting practice, so you can save your lottery money, because the study has/is already been done. Nice sidestep of the question as to why Americans spend so much on health care, but can't stay alive as long as the Swedes, Brits, and others.
From: William Clark on 27 Dec 2009 09:50
In article <yJWdnTfj0agQGavWnZ2dnUVZ_rZi4p2d(a)earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > In article <doraymeRidThis-D091C8.08364227122009(a)news.albasani.net>, > dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > You have a distorted view, I am afraid, about what happens in countries > > that have different health systems to the US. In Australia, for example, > > it is precisely the above situation that the poorest of the poor often > > and usually gets the best that medical science can offer and as promptly > > as the ambulance gets to a hospital. And they get to go home to their > > own home, their old car is still in their driveway, the furniture is > > still there and they even get to keep their own bed. > > Same here. The safety net hospitals are almost all teaching hospitals at > big academic medical centers. MCare pays for most of the really poor > and even more when the hospitals do the paperwork to get people on the > roles. Where there are some holes is for the working poor and more > recently with those more middle class. The problems could be cured with > some changes around the edges instead of a wholesale sacking of the > current system. The lunacy in the current US system is the notion that health care should be provided by private insurance companies (whose business is based on eliminating high risk clients), and linked to employment. There is simply no logic in that any more. |