Our health care system is the greatest in the world

[ck4829]

Just don't get sick, get some antibiotic resistant infection, get cancer, get into a bad accident, have some health insurance company that thinks it's cool to increase it's profit margin by 3 cents by dropping you, or the insurance redefines your treatment as "experimental", get surgery, get x-rays or scans of any kind, have insurance and still go bankrupt, or get medical care at all really.

As long as you abide by that, you should be fine.

[LWolf]

1. And that is exactly what too many of us already do,

even those of us with insurance; go without care because we can't afford copays and deductibles after paying the premiums.

[rurallib]

5. Amen brother

[leftofcool]

13. That would be us too!

[RKP5637]

2. This must be the Grand USA, Inc., you are speaking of, Home of Corporate

Robbery, Thievery and Rip Off Haven. If it makes money it's blessed, if it hurts people, well, it's their fault, crush them and roll over them, they stood in the way of our profits.

[RainDog]

3. Actually, we're ranked 37th in the world for healthcare

in this rich nation, we are only slightly better on health care than Belarus.

so, fuck that shit about this being the best health care.

it's the best if you're rich. which doesn't matter because the rich from all over the world get the best health care.

so please, stop the bullshit about America being the best.

we're also not even in the top ten on quality of life indices.

[Festivito]

15. It's like we're behind in every race and claim to win the track meet.

What is the source of the number one claim? No one seems to know.

[RainDog]

16. the source of the #1 claim is republican bullshit n/t

[salguine]

4. This is why I almost go blind with incredulous anger when all the

cheerleaders for this piece of shit bill keep crowing in triumph...they're too goddamn thick-headed to grasp that having insurance means exactly shit. Insurance is no guarantee of care.

[luckyleftyme2]

7. yes the bullshit doesn't stick anymore

since the populace got access to the computer the bullshit hasbeen exposed;yes in 1998 we were rated 37th in the world for health-care coverage! BUT DID YOU ALSO KNOW
WE RATE 91ST IN THE WORLD FOR LIVING CONDITIONS!
ITS TIME WE SHOVED THIS IN THE FACE OF THE RIGHT-THEY ARE THE ONES KILLING OUR SURVIVAL!

[RainDog]

17. we were ranked 37th in 2005 as well.

do you have a link for the living conditions claim?

[kenny blankenship]

6. It's the very best of its kind!

Because NO ONE ELSE is dumb enough to do it this way anymore, and that will STILL be a true statement after the Guaranteed Insurance Profits Permanent Emergency Reform of 2010 (GIPPER) passes.

[luckyleftyme2]

9. HERE'S A LITTLE FACT

from the publishers of
the New England
Journal of Medicine
Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
Posted by NEJM • January 6th, 2010 • Printer-friendly
Christopher J.L. Murray, M.D., D.Phil., and Julio Frenk, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H.

Evidence that other countries perform better than the United States in ensuring the health of their populations is a sure prod to the reformist impulse. The World Health Report 2000, Health Systems: Improving Performance, ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world1 — a result that has been discussed frequently during the current debate on U.S. health care reform.

The conceptual framework underlying the rankings2 proposed that health systems should be assessed by comparing the extent to which investments in public health and medical care were contributing to critical social objectives: improving health, reducing health disparities, protecting households from impoverishment due to medical expenses, and providing responsive services that respect the dignity of patients. Despite the limitations of the available data, those who compiled the report undertook the task of applying this framework to a quantitative assessment of the performance of 191 national health care systems. These comparisons prompted extensive media coverage and political debate in many countries. In some, such as Mexico, they catalyzed the enactment of far-reaching reforms aimed at achieving universal health coverage. The comparative analysis of performance also triggered intense academic debate, which led to proposals for better performance assessment.

Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?

Comparisons also reveal that the United States is falling farther behind each year (see graph). In 1974, mortality among boys and men 15 to 60 years of age was nearly the same in Australia and the United States and was one third lower in Sweden. Every year since 1974, the rate of death decreased more in Australia than it did in the United States, and in 2006, Australia’s rate dipped lower than Sweden’s and was 40% lower than the U.S. rate. There are no published studies investigating the combination of policies and programs that might account for the marked progress in Australia. But the comparison makes clear that U.S. performance not only is poor at any given moment but also is improving much more slowly than that of other countries over time. These observations and the reflections they should trigger are made possible only by careful comparative quantification of various facets of health care systems.


SO MUCH FOR REP. JOHN (BONEYA) AND SEN. MITCH (THE BITCH 0F TAKE)MCCONEL THE WHORES OF THE INS. INDUSTRY!

[luckyleftyme2]

10. HERES A LITTLE FACT

from the publishers of
the New England
Journal of Medicine
Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
Posted by NEJM • January 6th, 2010 • Printer-friendly
Christopher J.L. Murray, M.D., D.Phil., and Julio Frenk, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H.

Evidence that other countries perform better than the United States in ensuring the health of their populations is a sure prod to the reformist impulse. The World Health Report 2000, Health Systems: Improving Performance, ranked the U.S. health care system 37th in the world1 — a result that has been discussed frequently during the current debate on U.S. health care reform.

The conceptual framework underlying the rankings2 proposed that health systems should be assessed by comparing the extent to which investments in public health and medical care were contributing to critical social objectives: improving health, reducing health disparities, protecting households from impoverishment due to medical expenses, and providing responsive services that respect the dignity of patients. Despite the limitations of the available data, those who compiled the report undertook the task of applying this framework to a quantitative assessment of the performance of 191 national health care systems. These comparisons prompted extensive media coverage and political debate in many countries. In some, such as Mexico, they catalyzed the enactment of far-reaching reforms aimed at achieving universal health coverage. The comparative analysis of performance also triggered intense academic debate, which led to proposals for better performance assessment.

Despite the claim by many in the U.S. health policy community that international comparison is not useful because of the uniqueness of the United States, the rankings have figured prominently in many arenas. It is hard to ignore that in 2006, the United States was number 1 in terms of health care spending per capita but ranked 39th for infant mortality, 43rd for adult female mortality, 42nd for adult male mortality, and 36th for life expectancy.3 These facts have fueled a question now being discussed in academic circles, as well as by government and the public: Why do we spend so much to get so little?

Comparisons also reveal that the United States is falling farther behind each year (see graph). In 1974, mortality among boys and men 15 to 60 years of age was nearly the same in Australia and the United States and was one third lower in Sweden. Every year since 1974, the rate of death decreased more in Australia than it did in the United States, and in 2006, Australia’s rate dipped lower than Sweden’s and was 40% lower than the U.S. rate. There are no published studies investigating the combination of policies and programs that might account for the marked progress in Australia. But the comparison makes clear that U.S. performance not only is poor at any given moment but also is improving much more slowly than that of other countries over time. These observations and the reflections they should trigger are made possible only by careful comparative quantification of various facets of health care systems.

[kenny blankenship]

11. Too early in the day for sarcasm?

[malaise]

14. Who cares what the New England Journal says about anything

RW ReTHUGS say it is the best health care in the world so that is that. How the hell can people in the sphere of medicine know more about that subject that ex-car salesmen politicians? medicine? Get real!!!

[lapislzi]

8. The same 3-word tag applies: "if you're rich."

As with so many institutions in this country.

We have the greatest country money can buy.

[luckyleftyme2]

12. IF YOUR RICH

IF YOUR RICH OR IN THE KNOW! SEEMS TO BE THE WAY THIS COUNTRY IS BEING RUN!
WE NEED TO VOTE IN NEW BLOOD!

[deaniac21]

18. I can't wait until I can afford to get Canadian healthcare.