PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues U.S. Spends The Most On Health Care, Yet Gets Least


Jilly
06-23-2010, 11:12 AM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128027472

Once again that's the sobering conclusion of the 2010 version of the annual Commonwealth Fund comparison of the U.S. health system with those in ther industrialized nations.

This year the competitors were Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The U.S. finished last.

To come up with the rankings, researchers surveyed both doctors and patients. The criteria comprised quality, access, efficiency, equity, whether people in each country lived long and productive lives, and how much each country spent per person on care. The researchers produced a spiffy interactive graphic to display the results.

But the findings were strikingly similar to those from surveys done in the previous four years. The U.S. spends more — much more — on health care and gets much less value for those dollars.

Overall, the winner in this year's contest was the Netherlands. Interestingly, perhaps, it's a nation that doesn't have a government-run system, but instead achieves universal coverage with an individual insurance mandate, much like the one recently passed by the U.S. Congress. The Dutch were first in access, first in equity, and second in quality of care.

The U.S., by contrast, was last in every category except quality, where it was second to last, squeaking in ahead of Canada. At $7,290 in annual spending per person in 2007, the U.S. also dwarfed second-place Canada at $3,895 and third-place Netherlands at $3,837.

About the only good news for America, said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis, who was also the study's lead author, is that the new health law could put the U.S. on a path towards improvement.

"We will begin strengthening primary care and investing in health information technology and quality improvement, ensuring that more and more Americans can obtain access to high quality, efficient health care," Davis said.

HonestChieffan
06-23-2010, 11:12 AM
Propaganda BS

Jilly
06-23-2010, 11:14 AM
Propaganda BS

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/site_docs/slideshows/MirrorMirrorEmbargoed/MirrorMirror.html

vailpass
06-23-2010, 11:15 AM
NPR acting as the party propaganda machine. What a surprise. President Bullshitter will be doubling the NEA and earmarking a healthy chunk for them soon.

Jilly
06-23-2010, 11:15 AM
Propaganda BS

Didn't realize statistics were propaganda.

Jilly
06-23-2010, 11:15 AM
NPR acting as the party propaganda machine. What a surprise. President Bullshitter will be doubling the NEA and earmarking a healthy chunk for them soon.

Again, the article is based on statistics.

LOCOChief
06-23-2010, 11:16 AM
Let's classify this under "Crock of shit"

The commonwealth fund commparison?

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 11:17 AM
Didn't realize statistics were propaganda.

Then you don't know much about statistics.

vailpass
06-23-2010, 11:17 AM
Didn't realize statistics were propaganda.

The "statistics" are based on survey responses. A good researcher could just as well use the data to prove that Americans complain more than any other country.
Just becasue someone compiles numbers does not mean those numbers are valid or that they prove the statement.

LOCOChief
06-23-2010, 11:18 AM
figures lie, and liers figure

HonestChieffan
06-23-2010, 11:19 AM
Again, the article is based on statistics.

Well, they are. They can be, and they always have been.

vailpass
06-23-2010, 11:22 AM
Jilly I'm sorry if I sounded antagonistic, it was not directed at you. You are always a civil poster with a touch of cool mixed in and I don't want to offend you.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2010, 11:24 AM
I'd have to see the individual metrics to believe their conclusion to be accurate. What's the gap? It is encouraging though that the Netherlands finished first.

Jilly
06-23-2010, 11:25 AM
Then you don't know much about statistics.

You're right, I don't. I never took statistics in college or high school. Just calculus.

However, as much as we can shrug it off to statistics being skewed....couldn't we also see that much like jokes based on race or sexism, maybe they turn out that way because there might be a tiny bit of truth in there somewhere?

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 11:27 AM
You're right, I don't. I never took statistics in college or high school. Just calculus.

However, as much as we can shrug it off to statistics being skewed....couldn't we also see that much like jokes based on race or sexism, maybe they turn out that way because there might be a tiny bit of truth in there somewhere?

Tiny bits of truth are hardly sufficient reasons to **** with one sixth of the U.S. economy. I'd prefer to hold out for huge undeniable chunks of truth.

Jilly
06-23-2010, 11:27 AM
Jilly I'm sorry if I sounded antagonistic, it was not directed at you. You are always a civil poster with a touch of cool mixed in and I don't want to offend you.

Eh, you're fine. I posted it because I read it and thought it was interesting. Plus, I find the whole healthcare debate interesting, as we all can agree that there is something wrong with ours, yet can't agree on how to change it.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 11:29 AM
Eh, you're fine. I posted it because I read it and thought it was interesting. Plus, I find the whole healthcare debate interesting, as we all can agree that there is something wrong with ours, yet can't agree on how to change it.

We do not all agree with that.

Jilly
06-23-2010, 11:30 AM
We do not all agree with that.

Hmmmm.....so you can honestly say you feel like healthcare in the U.S. is perfect?

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 11:31 AM
Hmmmm.....so you can honestly say you feel like healthcare in the U.S. is perfect?

I can honestly say that there is no such thing as a perfect system, and I'm quite satisfied with our system's strengths and imperfections.

Jilly
06-23-2010, 11:34 AM
Tiny bits of truth are hardly sufficient reasons to **** with one sixth of the U.S. economy. I'd prefer to hold out for huge undeniable chunks of truth.

Let me ask you this, and I'm going to reveal a personal truth here, so be gentle with me.... I have a husband and a toddler and myself in my family, say I make below $40,000 a year (as of right now anyways) and my employer does not pay my health insurance and my husband is unemployed. I work 55+ hours a week. A premium for healthcare for my entire family is roughly $600 a month. Do you believe that is a fair amount and one my family and I can well afford?

CoMoChief
06-23-2010, 11:35 AM
We have the best Health Care in the world.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2010, 11:36 AM
Aggregates based on a general entity like the "U.S." spends are bogus.
That's just a lump sum total of what individuals and families are paying for healthcare. Meanwhile, Canada is considering charging fees now and the HC systems of Europe are imploding. I expect them to just riot the way they did in Greece though. So much for comparing on a country by country basis or an aggregate. It doesn't tell much.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2010, 11:36 AM
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/site_docs/slideshows/MirrorMirrorEmbargoed/MirrorMirror.html

Okay...so these are their metrics. We finished first in 3 out of 5 areas in Prevention. The second area, Chronical Care, is all centered around reporting on patients. Why would that be? We have no centralized reporting system. And we don't want one. It basically leads to the conclusion that Doctors can't keep up with the volume.

Anyone know what our patient to Doctor ratio is?

This is further illustrated under the Prevention area because we scored 6th in access. It all depends on how you define access. If by "access" they mean "Free" then it's not a valid indicator.

Another confound on the study is it's survey driven.

What's the solution? We need more doctors and less of a malpractice liability burden on the doctors. These are the jobs we need to create.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 11:40 AM
Let me ask you this, and I'm going to reveal a personal truth here, so be gentle with me.... I have a husband and a toddler and myself in my family, say I make below $40,000 a year (as of right now anyways) and my employer does not pay my health insurance and my husband is unemployed. I work 55+ hours a week. A premium for healthcare for my entire family is roughly $600 a month. Do you believe that is a fair amount and one my family and I can well afford?

Statistic: One out of one Jilly thinks that the health of her child isn't worth $600 a month.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 11:43 AM
Let me ask you this, and I'm going to reveal a personal truth here, so be gentle with me.... I have a husband and a toddler and myself in my family, say I make below $40,000 a year (as of right now anyways) and my employer does not pay my health insurance and my husband is unemployed. I work 55+ hours a week. A premium for healthcare for my entire family is roughly $600 a month. Do you believe that is a fair amount and one my family and I can well afford?

By the way, your husband should be delivering pizzas, mowing lawns, doing whatever the hell he can think of. Surely he can scrape $600 a month together.

Jilly
06-23-2010, 11:43 AM
Statistic: One out of one Jilly thinks that the health of her child isn't worth $600 a month.

Thanks for being gentle. :rolleyes:

And so we are clear, I do pay for her healthcare.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2010, 11:43 AM
Our medical system is broken and it can't get up.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 11:44 AM
Thanks for being gentle. :rolleyes:

And so we are clear, I do pay for her healthcare.

Yeah. You just don't think it's worth it. I guess we know where the kid stands.

I didn't promise to be gentle. That was someone who's gentler than I am.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2010, 11:47 AM
Let me ask you this, and I'm going to reveal a personal truth here, so be gentle with me.... I have a husband and a toddler and myself in my family, say I make below $40,000 a year (as of right now anyways) and my employer does not pay my health insurance and my husband is unemployed. I work 55+ hours a week. A premium for healthcare for my entire family is roughly $600 a month. Do you believe that is a fair amount and one my family and I can well afford?

Only you can answer that, since value is subjective.

I never bought into family plans like that when my kid was young to keep my premium down to $200 or so a month. This way I was just protected against bankruptcy with a stop gap of $5000 for any major illness—should that happen. The smaller stuff I paid for myself out of pocket.

Mine was hardly sick anyway. In fact I didn't even believe in those well baby checks which are just a way to line the pockets of pediatricians ( one of the lowest paying of the doctors) for something unecessary. I did do a physical every so often besides it being required for school. Eyeglasses when she communicated to me she couldn't see something.

If you treat health care insurance as insurance and not something that tries to pay for everything you will save more in the end. That's just sound economics.

I did sink some money into chiro/natural medicine ( even for an ear infection) and healthy foods—organic baby foods for instance. That was well worth it.
I even went without any insurance for a few years.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2010, 11:47 AM
1st step should be to remove the conflicts of interest between the regulatory bodies and the medical industry.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2010, 11:48 AM
Let me ask you this, and I'm going to reveal a personal truth here, so be gentle with me.... I have a husband and a toddler and myself in my family, say I make below $40,000 a year (as of right now anyways) and my employer does not pay my health insurance and my husband is unemployed. I work 55+ hours a week. A premium for healthcare for my entire family is roughly $600 a month. Do you believe that is a fair amount and one my family and I can well afford?

300 per person is too much, IMO. Unless you have major health concerns. What you need to do is one of you needs to get a job that provides a group policy. Shop the plans. Just about every major company has a website with their benefits advertised.


If that's not an option, then you need to do something. Shop around for a different job. If you work 55 hours per week, you are working 32 hours per month for the 3 of you based on a hourly pay. If you are salary you are getting screwed. It would be better to stay at home.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2010, 11:49 AM
Only you can answer that, since value is subjective.

I never bought into family plans like that when my kid was young to keep my premium down to $200 or so a month. This way I was just protected against bankruptcy with a stop gap of $5000 for any major illness—should that happen. The smaller stuff I paid for myself out of pocket.

Mine was hardly sick anyway. In fact I didn't even believe in those well baby checks which are just a way to line the pockets of pediatricians ( one of the lowest paying of the doctors) for something unecessary. I did do a physical every so often besides it being required for school. Eyeglasses when she communicated to me she couldn't see something.

If you treat health care insurance as insurance and not something that tries to pay for everything you will save more in the end. That's just sound economics.

I did sink some money into chiro/natural medicine ( even for an ear infection) and healthy foods—organic baby foods for instance. That was well worth it.

This right here.

RaiderH8r
06-23-2010, 11:50 AM
I'd rather have a little, top flight, 1st world American care than all the free 3rd world, voodoo care in the universe.

Jilly
06-23-2010, 11:51 AM
By the way, your husband should be delivering pizzas, mowing lawns, doing whatever the hell he can think of. Surely he can scrape $600 a month together.

I even think $600 is a lowball figure, but as I was saying....there's nothing about it that seems unfair to you? What if my salary was $30000 a year? What if it were minimum wage? I'm still working, but now my gross take home pay, after I pay healthcare is $22,800, leaving me less than $2000 a month to pay for food, shelter, gas, utilities...not to mention if anything happens the $2500 deductible to have such a low premium to begin with.

But, I"m sure there's still nothing wrong as my husband needs to get a job.

blaise
06-23-2010, 11:52 AM
I'm so fearful of getting sick in the U.S. You go in for the flu and some doctor operates on you with rusted equipment. It's so bad here.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2010, 11:53 AM
I even think $600 is a lowball figure, but as I was saying....there's nothing about it that seems unfair to you? What if my salary was $30000 a year? What if it were minimum wage? I'm still working, but now my gross take home pay, after I pay healthcare is $22,800, leaving me less than $2000 a month to pay for food, shelter, gas, utilities...not to mention if anything happens the $2500 deductible to have such a low premium to begin with.

But, I"m sure there's still nothing wrong as my husband needs to get a job.

It's usually teenagers who make minimum wage not working parents. If the working parents are only making that then they need to do something to improve their skills so they have more to offer for more money. I mean do you want to pay hi prices for for things that min wage workers do too?

It's rough out there for jobs right now unfortunately. A lot of people are in that position including college grads.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2010, 11:54 AM
I'm so fearful of getting sick in the U.S. You go in for the flu and some doctor operates on you with rusted equipment. It's so bad here.

LOL

BucEyedPea
06-23-2010, 11:54 AM
1st step should be to remove the conflicts of interest between the regulatory bodies and the medical industry.

Bingo!

Jilly
06-23-2010, 11:56 AM
Yeah. You just don't think it's worth it. I guess we know where the kid stands.

I didn't promise to be gentle. That was someone who's gentler than I am.

That is by far the shittiest thing you could ever say to me.

vailpass
06-23-2010, 11:57 AM
Yeah. You just don't think it's worth it. I guess we know where the kid stands.

I didn't promise to be gentle. That was someone who's gentler than I am.

Dude.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 11:59 AM
I even think $600 is a lowball figure, but as I was saying....there's nothing about it that seems unfair to you? What if my salary was $30000 a year? What if it were minimum wage? I'm still working, but now my gross take home pay, after I pay healthcare is $22,800, leaving me less than $2000 a month to pay for food, shelter, gas, utilities...not to mention if anything happens the $2500 deductible to have such a low premium to begin with.

But, I"m sure there's still nothing wrong as my husband needs to get a job.

I have no idea what other financial choices you make in your life. It's likely that you choose to spend money on products and services that I might not choose. In the absence of us being able to go through your family's budget line by line I'll just offer this: If you truly can't afford health care, there are public and private programs that will pay for all or part of it for you.

And yes. Your husband needs to get a job. Any job.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 12:04 PM
Dude.

Oh, don't speak harshly to her. She's a girl.

Dude.

Jilly
06-23-2010, 12:06 PM
I have no idea what other financial choices you make in your life. It's likely that you choose to spend money on products and services that I might not choose. In the absence of us being able to go through your family's budget line by line I'll just offer this: If you truly can't afford health care, there are public and private programs that will pay for all or part of it for you.

And yes. Your husband needs to get a job. Any job.

I was giving a scenario. The only personal thing I offered was that my job does not provide healthcare and that we are a family of three and my husband doesn't work. I pay for healthcare because I do think it's worth it.

The problem is that people like you think there's no issue in the system, nothing wrong with it.

Lady I know was given no therapy for her legs in the nursing home because her healthcare wouldn't provide it. She lived in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. No problem with that, nothing wrong with healthcare.

Another man was sent home with pneumonia because his healthcare wouldn't pay for another day in the hospital, he was put on a respirator a week later. No problem, nothing wrong with healthcare here.

Family of 5, both parents laid off from jobs at the same time, have been searching for a month for jobs with no bites, but because they have a savings account with money in it (enough for them to live for 3 months with bare minimum - food, shelter), they don't qualify for medicare. No problem, nothing wrong with healthcare

I obviously don't know much about the healthcare system or budgeting or statistics, but I don't see how anyone who has some intelligence doesn't see that there is a problem with healthcare in the US.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 12:11 PM
I was giving a scenario. The only personal thing I offered was that my job does not provide healthcare and that we are a family of three and my husband doesn't work. I pay for healthcare because I do think it's worth it.

The problem is that people like you think there's no issue in the system, nothing wrong with it.

Again, I recognize its imperfections, but I don't support trying to fix every imperfection.

Lady I know was given no therapy for her legs in the nursing home because her healthcare wouldn't provide it. She lived in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. No problem with that, nothing wrong with healthcare.

Another man was sent home with pneumonia because his healthcare wouldn't pay for another day in the hospital, he was put on a respirator a week later. No problem, nothing wrong with healthcare here.

Family of 5, both parents laid off from jobs at the same time, have been searching for a month for jobs with no bites, but because they have a savings account with money in it (enough for them to live for 3 months with bare minimum - food, shelter), they don't qualify for medicare. No problem, nothing wrong with healthcare

I obviously don't know much about the healthcare system or budgeting or statistics, but I don't see how anyone who has some intelligence doesn't see that there is a problem with healthcare in the US.

People get sick and people die. If you come up with a solution to that problem let me know.

Jilly
06-23-2010, 12:14 PM
Again, I recognize its imperfections, but I don't support trying to fix every imperfection.



People get sick and die. If you come up with a solution to that problem let me know.

Been working on it, but immortality isn't one of my superhero powers.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2010, 12:15 PM
Dude.

Dude has hostility issues....and he claims to be a Christian too. :shake:

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2010, 12:15 PM
I was giving a scenario. The only personal thing I offered was that my job does not provide healthcare and that we are a family of three and my husband doesn't work. I pay for healthcare because I do think it's worth it.

The problem is that people like you think there's no issue in the system, nothing wrong with it.

Lady I know was given no therapy for her legs in the nursing home because her healthcare wouldn't provide it. She lived in a wheelchair for the rest of her life. No problem with that, nothing wrong with healthcare.

Another man was sent home with pneumonia because his healthcare wouldn't pay for another day in the hospital, he was put on a respirator a week later. No problem, nothing wrong with healthcare here.

Family of 5, both parents laid off from jobs at the same time, have been searching for a month for jobs with no bites, but because they have a savings account with money in it (enough for them to live for 3 months with bare minimum - food, shelter), they don't qualify for medicare. No problem, nothing wrong with healthcare

I obviously don't know much about the healthcare system or budgeting or statistics, but I don't see how anyone who has some intelligence doesn't see that there is a problem with healthcare in the US.

There are mayjor problems. I don't think we need to throw the baby out with the bath water though. Regulatory bodies are the biggest problem. Next would be having a truly free market. Next would be to letting doctors return to being doctors instead of dictating protocol.

I don't see this as being a this or the other scenario. My 2 cents.

LOCOChief
06-23-2010, 12:15 PM
I obviously don't know much about the healthcare system or budgeting or statistics, but I don't see how anyone who has some intelligence doesn't see that there is a problem with healthcare in the US.

Apparently you're not dealing with someone whom has some intelligence. Of course you're right we (this country) does need health care reform, just not the crap that's being forced down our throat, which isn't about reform at all but rather control.

But if anyone here thinks that our current health care system which imo is among the best in the world is fine and doesn't need improvements then they have no clue.

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2010, 12:17 PM
Apparently you're not dealing with someone whom has some intelligence. Of course you're right we (this country) does need health care reform, just not the crap that's being forced down our throat, which isn't about reform at all but rather control.

But if anyone here thinks that our current health care system which imo is among the best in the world is fine and doesn't need improvements then they have no clue.

Yep

Jilly
06-23-2010, 12:20 PM
Apparently you're not dealing with someone whom has some intelligence. Of course you're right we (this country) does need health care reform, just not the crap that's being forced down our throat, which isn't about reform at all but rather control.

But if anyone here thinks that our current health care system which imo is among the best in the world is fine and doesn't need improvements then they have no clue.

I don't agree with what's been proposed at all either and I don't know what the solution is, but I do find it incredibly ridiculous that of all the great minds of the world we can't come up with something.

thecoffeeguy
06-23-2010, 12:23 PM
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128027472

Once again that's the sobering conclusion of the 2010 version of the annual Commonwealth Fund comparison of the U.S. health system with those in ther industrialized nations.

This year the competitors were Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The U.S. finished last.

To come up with the rankings, researchers surveyed both doctors and patients. The criteria comprised quality, access, efficiency, equity, whether people in each country lived long and productive lives, and how much each country spent per person on care. The researchers produced a spiffy interactive graphic to display the results.

But the findings were strikingly similar to those from surveys done in the previous four years. The U.S. spends more — much more — on health care and gets much less value for those dollars.

Overall, the winner in this year's contest was the Netherlands. Interestingly, perhaps, it's a nation that doesn't have a government-run system, but instead achieves universal coverage with an individual insurance mandate, much like the one recently passed by the U.S. Congress. The Dutch were first in access, first in equity, and second in quality of care.

The U.S., by contrast, was last in every category except quality, where it was second to last, squeaking in ahead of Canada. At $7,290 in annual spending per person in 2007, the U.S. also dwarfed second-place Canada at $3,895 and third-place Netherlands at $3,837.

About the only good news for America, said Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis, who was also the study's lead author, is that the new health law could put the U.S. on a path towards improvement.

"We will begin strengthening primary care and investing in health information technology and quality improvement, ensuring that more and more Americans can obtain access to high quality, efficient health care," Davis said.

BS.
Isn't Canada going broke because of its system and due to that, want to get away from it?

Propaganda crap.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 12:24 PM
If only we could find a guy like House but not only a doctor but an economist too, y'know? That guy could fix it.

:facepalm:

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2010, 12:25 PM
I don't agree with what's been proposed at all either and I don't know what the solution is, but I do find it incredibly ridiculous that of all the great minds of the world we can't come up with something.

It's not that we can't come up with something. It's about power, control and money that flows from it.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2010, 12:32 PM
I don't agree with what's been proposed at all either and I don't know what the solution is, but I do find it incredibly ridiculous that of all the great minds of the world we can't come up with something.

The idea that "we" have to come up with something is relying on "central planning." That never works. For one it means a one size fits all by a few men. What is needed, is less govt interference not more. That interference is the number one cause of the soaring rates.

patteeu
06-23-2010, 12:38 PM
Didn't realize statistics were propaganda.

What if I told you that 83% of interracial violence is committed by blacks against whites?

Jilly
06-23-2010, 12:40 PM
What if I told you that 83% of interracial violence is committed by blacks against whites?

I'd wonder where you got that information.

patteeu
06-23-2010, 01:02 PM
I'd wonder where you got that information.

If only you were that curious about where the Commonwealth Fund got their information. Hopefully this helps you to understand that a statistic is only as useful as the information on which it's based. Garcia Bronco did a good job earlier in the thread of pointing out some of the biases in this study.

LOCOChief
06-23-2010, 01:09 PM
We could kill all the ambulance chaising lawyers but like the dumbass dem Howard Dean said, their not going to piss off the trial lawyers.

Jilly
06-23-2010, 01:35 PM
If only you were that curious about where the Commonwealth Fund got their information. Hopefully this helps you to understand that a statistic is only as useful as the information on which it's based. Garcia Bronco did a good job earlier in the thread of pointing out some of the biases in this study.

So it was from a 2009 International Health Survey, done by Harris Interactive, Inc. And here's what it said the survey was based upon:

Countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Survey Organization: Harris Interactive, Inc. and country contractors. The Commonwealth Fund provided core support for the study and partnered with the Health Foundation (U.K.), Australian Commission of Safety/Quality, Health Council of Canda, Ontario Quality Council, and Quebec Health Commission for expanded samples. Other countries were funded by: German Institute for Quality and Efficiency, Haute Authorité de Santé and Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés, Italian Association of Primary Care Doctors (FIMMG), Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport and Scientific Institute of Quality of Health Care Radboud University, Norwegian Knowledge Center, and the Swedish Ministry of Health.

Sample: Primary care doctors

Sample size: The final study includes 1,016 primary care doctors in Australia, 1,401 in Canada, 502 in France, 715 in Germany, 844 in Italy, 614 in Netherlands, 500 in New Zealand, 774 in Norway, 1,450 in Sweden, 1,062 in the U.K., and 1,442 in the U.S.

Interview Method: A combination of mail, phone and internet (the method varied by country)

Jilly
06-23-2010, 01:37 PM
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Home.aspx

Jilly
06-23-2010, 01:42 PM
And here's the entire report:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf

AustinChief
06-23-2010, 01:42 PM
The problem with crap like this is that it's based on SURVEYS... a survey can only tell you one thing... what people's OPINIONS are... they do NOT reflect facts.

All this study shows is that Americans bitch more about the health care they are getting, for the money spent. So what have we proved? Nothing.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 01:50 PM
The problem with crap like this is that it's based on SURVEYS... a survey can only tell you one thing... what people's OPINIONS are... they do NOT reflect facts.

All this study shows is that Americans bitch more about the health care they are getting, for the money spent. So what have we proved? Nothing.

In this case (assuming that Jilly is correct) we're getting doctors' opinions.

So it was from a 2009 International Health Survey, done by Harris Interactive, Inc. And here's what it said the survey was based upon:...

Sample: Primary care doctors

Sample size: The final study includes 1,016 primary care doctors in Australia, 1,401 in Canada, 502 in France, 715 in Germany, 844 in Italy, 614 in Netherlands, 500 in New Zealand, 774 in Norway, 1,450 in Sweden, 1,062 in the U.K., and 1,442 in the U.S.

Interview Method: A combination of mail, phone and internet (the method varied by country)

Jilly
06-23-2010, 01:52 PM
And apparently one of the reports comes from an OECD Health Data survey...here's the link for that:

http://www.oecd.org/document/56/0,3343,en_2649_34631_12968734_1_1_1_37407,00.html

Jilly
06-23-2010, 01:54 PM
You can believe me or look at the links and decide for yourself. I could have easily misread something.

vailpass
06-23-2010, 01:59 PM
Oh, don't speak harshly to her. She's a girl.

Dude.

No. Don't speak harshly to a mother regarding her love and concern for her child.
Dude.

Garcia Bronco
06-23-2010, 02:00 PM
And here's the entire report:

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf

I looked at it further. It's not something to tout around as definitive by any stretch of the imagination.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 02:00 PM
No. Don't speak harshly to a mother regarding her love and concern for her child.
Dude.

Everyone has a squeal number, or so it would appear.

Jilly
06-23-2010, 02:02 PM
I looked at it further. It's not something to tout around as definitive by any stretch of the imagination.

Not saying that.....but since there was a problem with where it came from....I'm just trying to post link after link to get to the firsthand source so that us geniuses can make light of it ourselves :D

vailpass
06-23-2010, 02:03 PM
Everyone has a squeal number, or so it would appear.

Is a squeal number like a weak spot?
I admit to having a predisposition to treating respectable women with respect.
You always come with solid views on this board and I enjoy your posts; in this case it seemed like you responded pretty harshly to someone who was sharing personal data (which is one of the many reasons I wouldn't share personal data on an interweb bb).

LOCOChief
06-23-2010, 02:07 PM
Is a squeal number like a weak spot?
I admit to having a predisposition to treating respectable women with respect.
You always come with solid views on this board and I enjoy your posts; in this case it seemed like you responded pretty harshly to someone who was sharing personal data (which is one of the many reasons I wouldn't share personal data on an interweb bb).

:clap:

Jilly
06-23-2010, 02:18 PM
Is a squeal number like a weak spot?
I admit to having a predisposition to treating respectable women with respect.
You always come with solid views on this board and I enjoy your posts; in this case it seemed like you responded pretty harshly to someone who was sharing personal data (which is one of the many reasons I wouldn't share personal data on an interweb bb).

based on many of his comments to me over the years, I'm gonna say he won't agree with you that I am respectable.

patteeu
06-23-2010, 02:23 PM
So it was from a 2009 International Health Survey, done by Harris Interactive, Inc. And here's what it said the survey was based upon:

Countries: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States

Survey Organization: Harris Interactive, Inc. and country contractors. The Commonwealth Fund provided core support for the study and partnered with the Health Foundation (U.K.), Australian Commission of Safety/Quality, Health Council of Canda, Ontario Quality Council, and Quebec Health Commission for expanded samples. Other countries were funded by: German Institute for Quality and Efficiency, Haute Authorité de Santé and Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés, Italian Association of Primary Care Doctors (FIMMG), Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport and Scientific Institute of Quality of Health Care Radboud University, Norwegian Knowledge Center, and the Swedish Ministry of Health.

Sample: Primary care doctors

Sample size: The final study includes 1,016 primary care doctors in Australia, 1,401 in Canada, 502 in France, 715 in Germany, 844 in Italy, 614 in Netherlands, 500 in New Zealand, 774 in Norway, 1,450 in Sweden, 1,062 in the U.K., and 1,442 in the U.S.

Interview Method: A combination of mail, phone and internet (the method varied by country)

All of that is nice, but it doesn't really tell you anything about what the study means.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 02:24 PM
Is a squeal number like a weak spot?

No. She questioned whether her health care insurance should cost $600 per month. It's reasonable to assume that there exists a figure that she absolutely wouldn't pay. That's her squeal number.

And please accept this for what it means on its own and nothing more: I don't care that she was offended.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 02:25 PM
based on many of his comments to me over the years, I'm gonna say he won't agree with you that I am respectable.

I imagine that if I knew you I'd find aspects of your character that I would respect.

EDIT: Frankly I don't remember commenting to you or about you "many" times. Perhaps my memory is failing me in my dotage.

patteeu
06-23-2010, 02:29 PM
Not saying that.....but since there was a problem with where it came from....I'm just trying to post link after link to get to the firsthand source so that us geniuses can make light of it ourselves :D

I guess I misunderstood your level of curiousity. The problem wasn't about where it came from, it was about how the results were determined. I was suggesting that you need to be more curious about what was actually measured not about who measured it or what website announced the results.

Donger
06-23-2010, 02:31 PM
Well, of course they like their "free" health care. It's "free." What they don't like is paying $7 for a gallon of gasoline.

Oh, wait.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 02:35 PM
Well, of course they like their "free" health care. It's "free." What they don't like is paying $7 for a gallon of gasoline.

Oh, wait.

Pricing it in liters helps ease their pain.

But of course you're correct. They pay for their health care in part at the pump.

vailpass
06-23-2010, 02:38 PM
No. She questioned whether her health care insurance should cost $600 per month. It's reasonable to assume that there exists a figure that she absolutely wouldn't pay. That's her squeal number.

And please accept this for what it means on its own and nothing more: I don't care that she was offended.

Got it, thanks.

Donger
06-23-2010, 02:43 PM
Pricing it in liters helps ease their pain.

But of course you're correct. They pay for their health care in part at the pump.

I was just reading that the UK is going to increase their VAT to 20% Good lord, 20 f*cking percent.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 02:51 PM
I was just reading that the UK is going to increase their VAT to 20% Good lord, 20 f*cking percent.

I'm afraid that it's just a matter of time before we have a VAT here. And there's no way that it will replace the income tax. It will be in addition to it.

vailpass
06-23-2010, 02:51 PM
I was just reading that the UK is going to increase their VAT to 20% Good lord, 20 f*cking percent.

President step-n-fetch approves this message and feels it would help to enact it in the US. Haglosi would push it through for our own good.

Jilly
06-23-2010, 02:53 PM
I guess I misunderstood your level of curiousity. The problem wasn't about where it came from, it was about how the results were determined. I was suggesting that you need to be more curious about what was actually measured not about who measured it or what website announced the results.

All I'm saying is that no matter where statistics come from, someone has to determine what they mean and taht's where bias creeps in. So, if you're unwilling to take the commonwealth's interpretation of those statistics, then I gave you links to where they got there statistics, and I suppose it's up to you and to me to determine what they mean.

Donger
06-23-2010, 02:54 PM
I'm afraid that it's just a matter of time before we have a VAT here. And there's no way that it will replace the income tax. It will be in addition to it.

Oh, absolutely. I've been saying it for years. You can't replace income tax with a VAT; it wouldn't be "fair."

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 02:56 PM
...it's up to you and to me to determine what they mean.

It turns out that you know all you need to know about statistics.

Sully
06-23-2010, 03:07 PM
Is a squeal number like a weak spot?
I admit to having a predisposition to treating respectable women with respect.
You always come with solid views on this board and I enjoy your posts; in this case it seemed like you responded pretty harshly to someone who was sharing personal data (which is one of the many reasons I wouldn't share personal data on an interweb bb).

It's not so much about this particular thread with him.
He has a hard on for my wife and I based on two things;
Her being a minister
and
Us having differing political views.

He can't wait for one of us to post so he can send insulting reps, call us names, or try to get under our skin in some way. I allowed it to for quite a while, and decided it was my problem if some coward behind a keyboard (he's not the only one, BTW) could affect my "feelings."

My wife isn't completely without blame, in this case, as she provides personal info in these matters that isn't complete, so people with the "it's the Internet so I can be as much of a prick as I want" can run with it.

All that aside, I appreciate you showing a little class in this matter. Thanks.

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 03:17 PM
It's not so much about this particular thread with him...

I assure you that I don't in any way hold you or your wife in lower regard than I do a handful of others here.

Chiefshrink
06-23-2010, 03:23 PM
Propaganda BS

Right on!! The Marxist Dems know they are in major trouble with most of America not wanting this BS Healthcare bill.:shake: SPIN SPIN SPIN:rolleyes:

BIG_DADDY
06-23-2010, 03:31 PM
I assure you that I don't in any way hold you or your wife in lower regard than I do a handful of others here.

I don't think he really cares what regard you hold him and his wife in. I think it's more about having a little civility when addressing the significant other.

patteeu
06-23-2010, 04:48 PM
All I'm saying is that no matter where statistics come from, someone has to determine what they mean and taht's where bias creeps in. So, if you're unwilling to take the commonwealth's interpretation of those statistics, then I gave you links to where they got there statistics, and I suppose it's up to you and to me to determine what they mean.

Yeah, that's right. And I am definitely unwilling to take the commonwealth's interpretation at face value. Frankly, I find it pretty preposterous.

patteeu
06-23-2010, 04:55 PM
I don't think he really cares what regard you hold him and his wife in. I think it's more about having a little civility when addressing the significant other.

I don't think what Cleveland said was that big of a deal. I'm personally more offended when people suggest that it's unfair to be charged a certain amount just because they don't make as much money as someone else does.

WilliamTheIrish
06-23-2010, 06:18 PM
These surveys and Jilly's anecdotal stories go in the same bin as the hilarious Donger "free health care" anecdotes.

banyon
06-23-2010, 08:58 PM
Pricing it in liters helps ease their pain.

But of course you're correct. They pay for their health care in part at the pump.

As a percentage of their income they don't pay nearly as much as we do at the pump, due to our much higher usage rates.

http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/petrol.jpg

Mr. Kotter
06-23-2010, 09:42 PM
The least bang for the buck in the industrialized world, and yet the industry fat cats still wonder "why, or why....did we need reform?"

Wah...wah...wah. :rolleyes:

ClevelandBronco
06-23-2010, 10:34 PM
As a percentage of their income they don't pay nearly as much as we do at the pump, due to our much higher usage rates.

http://flowingdata.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/petrol.jpg

I wonder how those figures would look if over-the-road trucking was removed from the equation. This is a big, big place we're shipping things across.

EDIT: Upon a second look it probably wouldn't matter all that much. We are an automobile culture.

patteeu
06-24-2010, 12:14 AM
The least bang for the buck in the industrialized world, and yet the industry fat cats still wonder "why, or why....did we need reform?"

Wah...wah...wah. :rolleyes:

Here's another one who's happy not to be bothered with any of the important details.

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2010, 12:47 PM
It's not so much about this particular thread with him.
He has a hard on for my wife and I based on two things;
Her being a minister
and
Us having differing political views.

He can't wait for one of us to post so he can send insulting reps, call us names, or try to get under our skin in some way. I allowed it to for quite a while, and decided it was my problem if some coward behind a keyboard (he's not the only one, BTW) could affect my "feelings."

My wife isn't completely without blame, in this case, as she provides personal info in these matters that isn't complete, so people with the "it's the Internet so I can be as much of a prick as I want" can run with it.

All that aside, I appreciate you showing a little class in this matter. Thanks.

Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are all hiring.

Have you talked to a recruiter to at least explore all options, or are you too big a sissy and would rather your wife support you and your child?

vailpass
06-24-2010, 12:57 PM
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are all hiring.

Have you talked to a recruiter to at least explore all options, or are you too big a sissy and would rather your wife support you and your child?

My guess is your situation is pretty bad and you are trying to make you feel better about yourself here.
How is that working out for you?

Brock
06-24-2010, 12:59 PM
Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are all hiring.

Have you talked to a recruiter to at least explore all options, or are you too big a sissy and would rather your wife support you and your child?

How ironic.

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2010, 12:59 PM
My guess is your situation is pretty bad and you are trying to make you feel better about yourself here.
How is that working out for you?

My guess here is you are a rockefeller republican.

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2010, 12:59 PM
How ironic.

Get a job, loser.

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2010, 01:02 PM
That is by far the shittiest thing you could ever say to me.

Cry me a river.

:deevee:

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2010, 01:38 PM
What happened?

Nobody has any other cheap comments to make? That's good. We're making progress.

|Zach|
06-24-2010, 01:40 PM
Get a job, loser.

Brock has a job...I mean not every one is sad enough that really young and old people take their jobs...like someone that has cried about that in the past.

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2010, 01:47 PM
Brock has a job...I mean not every one is sad enough that really young and old people take their jobs...like someone that has cried about that in the past.

Sully needs a job---

You have two businesses, why don't you hire him?

ROFL

And while you are at it----\\

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2010, 01:58 PM
Ooooooooooooh I guess all the O-bots ran like fairies to Daface over that one.

Go ahead and ban me again, I'll be back. You know I will. And when I do, I'll just shove it up harder and deeper. Unlike leftist scumbags/o-bots, fairness and justice aren't just political expediencies to me.

lol

|Zach|
06-24-2010, 02:03 PM
What one?

WilliamTheIrish
06-24-2010, 02:14 PM
LMAO

dirk digler
06-24-2010, 02:47 PM
Ooooooooooooh I guess all the O-bots ran like fairies to Daface over that one.

Go ahead and ban me again, I'll be back. You know I will. And when I do, I'll just shove it up harder and deeper. Unlike leftist scumbags/o-bots, fairness and justice aren't just political expediencies to me.

lol

Nice to see you back shts, I haven't been around lately so what got you banned for the 100th time?

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2010, 03:39 PM
My husband needs a job and I don't think it's fair that I have to pay six hundred dollars a month for health insurance for my baby that I willingly took my clothes off and let a man fuck me so I could get pregnant! :crybaby:

chiefzilla1501
06-24-2010, 07:10 PM
Health care needs a lot of reform.

But this is fucking ridiculous. The reason the US spends more on health care is because their population is getting a lot older and Americans live by far and away the worst, unhealthiest people of any country on the planet. And it's not even close. That's the #1 reason why our health care sucks. And yes, when you have a system that excludes certain people from the system (which is one part of the legislation I agree with--give everyone access to health care), then the numbers go down quite a bit too. I'm sure this study also doesn't account for the fact that most citizens don't go in for emergency procedures. Sure, other systems are better in that they allow you to get more routine check-ups. The question is when you break your leg or anything not considered a major immediate emergency, how good is the service then?

There's no doubt that the majority of Americans who have health insurance have a far, far better health care experience than most other countries. If patients say otherwise, they're spoiled rotten.

googlegoogle
06-25-2010, 04:51 AM
We pay more because we don't have any competition in pricing and we don't have enough doctors.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2010, 08:44 AM
We pay more because we don't have any competition in pricing and we don't have enough doctors.

Don't forget the mandates.