I'd sure like to know where they get this number that the US 37th in the world in health care.
I did some reading about infant mortality. It turns out that not all countries count the same.
In many countries, if a newborn dies within a short period of time--hours/a few days-- after it is born, it is not recorded as a live birth.
In America, if a baby is born dead, it is counted.
A lot of time, countries do not gather statistics the same way.
I was told by an Italian doctor that in Italy if you are on dialysis and turn 65, they pull the plug unless you can pay.
In America, this kind of treatment is paid for by the federal government because the costs are so much.
Snaps - researchers doing analysis of global data are a little bit aware of differences in data recording between countries (amazing, but TRUE!), and they have methodology, that, like, enables them to standardise or factor out those differences.
As for the US health system: wouldn't want to be sick there for quids.
I have private hospital cover, but that just means if I needed anything I could pick my surgeon, be in hospital tomorrow and have a private room.
Without private insurance, I might have to wait a few weeks, I would definitely have to share a room, but it wouldn't cost me so much as a dollar.
Without private insurance, lets say I had an awful accident or a heart attack: I would be treated immediately, with state of the art equipment and care, and it wouldn't cost me a dollar.
If I go to a G.P who bulk bills, I don't pay anything.
If I go to a G.P who doesn't bulk bill, I get most of my money back by walking into a gov't shop front to get my refund.
When I do my annual tax return the gov't takes 1.5% of my gross income - which I don't mind in the least - for that minor and all but invisible contribution, I receive the best health care in the world, any treatment or surgery that is necessary, certainly any medications that are needed, and I need never ever worry about the cost.
If I needed every organ in my body transplanted, I wouldn't have to worry about paying any bills. I would never see any.
Your health system sucks beyond believe for one of the richest countries in the world.
Oh, forgot to mention: 100% of Australians are covered.
Private health insurance is nice, is encouraged by the gov't, but is a long way from being "essential", there is also a 30% tax rebate on the cost of private insurance for those who choose to take it out.
I know a lot of people who have private insurance but who choose to have procedures done under the public system, because it costs them nothing (eg, giving birth, or complex surgery), compared to using their private health insurance where they often find themselves paying for gaps.
Also, we don't have the problem of insurance companies telling us what treatments we're allowed to have, nor declining to give people insurance, nor charging sick people astronomical premiums.
It's called "community rating" - the risk is shared, quite logically, across the entire community, therefore, the same premiums for everyone, no matter their state of health.
Our insurance companies don't pretend to be qualified health practicioners, they keep their advice to themselves, appreciating that their business is "insurance", not medicine.
Caz-
You may not know as much as you usually think that you do if you don't read American literature about this.
We do not have nationalized health care, but there are many government programs at the Federal, State, and local level that help people who are not insured.
Canadians complain about their nationalized health care and come here because they are having to wait.
Well, in Arizona, I see the Indians brought in for their dialysis in ambulances. Medicaid pays. Of course, many people drive themselves so they don't waste the money if they live closeby and can get themselves there.
http://www.medicalsearch.com.au/...on_travel-
26608
24/06/2007 - Dialysis patients in rural areas are being forced to spend their food and grocery money to pay for travel to medical services, Kidney Health Australia says.
A survey conducted by the group found many patients have been refused assistance from the government's Patient Assisted Travel Scheme (PATS) and are struggling to reach integral services.
Our gov't doesn't "help" people who are not insured Snaps. They pay 100% for 100% of the people.
Private insurance is a personal choice, which most people don't exercise.
I have read an enormous amount about the American health system Snaps.
The US has one of the worst health systems in the world, and because of that, it is also the most absurdly over-priced system.
HEre is some information about government medical care programs in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
I misspoke about renal disease--that is done by medicare--for everyone.
Here is a bit about the Federal Medicare program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Med...nited_States%
29
This has an interesting discussion of the different ways that countries calculate Infant Mortality Rate IMR.
Notice that America and Australia define this differently, which makes it look like the US has a higher rate than it does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Inf...nt_mortalityThe World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality.
The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. The United States counts many infant births as live which other countries do not and therefore usually appears to have a much higher rate of infant mortality than similar countries. The US counts an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but other countries differ in these practices. For example, in Germany and Austria, fetal weight must reach one pound to be counted as a live birth, while in some other countries, including Switzerland, the baby must be at least 12 inches long. Both Belgium and France report babies as born lifeless if they are less than 26 weeks' gestation.[2]
For example:
Snaps - you have no knowledge of Australia, yet you assume the rest of the world knows nothing about America.
You do a random Google and find that the gov't here does not always pay for ordinary TRAVEL when people are sick.
Yes, people in rural areas, amazing as it may seem, have to TRAVEL further to get to medical treatment.
Do you even know how BIG this country is? It'a s big, big, sparsely populated country Snaps.
People who live a bus ride away don't get a subsidy for the fare.
Did you know that the gov't pays for people and a supportive relative or friend to fly over to Victoria from Tasmania if they can't deal with something in Tassie?
When my grandson was admitted to the children's hospital at a few weeks old, a couple of beds along was a 15 year old, flown in from Tasmania during the night, with his dad, because they don't have a specialist children's hospital in Tassie. He had bad stomach pains.
When my Aunty had to be assessed for organ transplate, she was flown over to Victoria, with one of her sisters, and an entire medical team, all accommodation for everyone paid for a week, while the transplant team in Victoria assessed her.
Yep, a survey of 1,400 Oz patients on dialysis found anecdotal evidence that some felt disadvantaged that they had to pay their own costs to travel to hospital. Wow, what a major catastrophe. Guess what, now that they have that data (recent) the gov't will likely (and in many cases ridiculously) address the TRANSPORT problem.
Try not to confuse transportation and medical treatment Snaps.
Try not to confuse $24 in travel costs with the cost of a prescription in America.
Here is the CIA World Fact Book on IMR, but again, different countries calculate this differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Lis..._mortality_rate
"The United States counts many infant births as live which other countries do not and therefore usually appears to have a much higher rate of infant mortality than similar countries. The US counts an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but other countries differ in these practices."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Inf..._mortality_rate
It's not just google. It is the CIA Fact Book that is their source.
We have elections here and people are skeptical of a National Healthcare System.
We have a lot of "free" healthcare for people who are old or disabled.
Yes, isn't it nice that people have to be old or disabled to receive adequate and affordable health care in the US.
Oh, we too are a democratic country Snaps, we too have elections.
And Snaps - did you write the CIA Fact Book, or did you do a google search to find the random article about travel costs and rurally located dialysis patients in Oz?
Please, you came up with ONE article about TRANSPORT costs.
Do you really think I'm that stupid?
Yes, the US is 37th in the list, and it will remain there, or get worse, until the US health system undertakes extraordinary reforms, which may never happen.
You obviously don't care about the health system in America, or the tens of millions of people who do not have or can't afford insurance, but are not eligible for gov't help, or cancer patients who are charged $60,000 annual insurance premiums - or get no insurance at all, because they can't afford it - you seem to care a great deal about where the US sits on the global list.
Well, you know where the US sits, get over it.
I'm bored now. You know that ignorance bores me.
Across Britain, patients wait years for routine - or even emergency - treatments. And many die while waiting.
Indeed, the NHS cancels around 100,000 operations because of shortages each year. In a growing number of communities, it is increasingly difficult for people to simply get an appointment with an NHS general practitioner for a regular check-up.
Further, when it comes to keeping patients healthy, NHS hospitals are notoriously unfit. After admittance to state hospitals, more than 10 percent of patients contract infections and illnesses that they did not have prior to arrival.
Consequently, many Britons have turned to outside practitioners for treatment, and the private healthcare market has boomed. Today, more than 6.5 million people have private medical insurance, six million have cash plans, eight million pay out-of-pocket for a range of complimentary therapies, and 250,000 self-fund each year for private acute surgery. Millions more opt for private dentistry, ophthalmics, and long-term care.
Meanwhile, despite the state’s continued claims that it can deliver quality health care to all, government ministers are increasingly willing to quietly outsource health care to the private sector. In other words, instead of directly providing health care through the NHS, the British government is shifting to simply paying the bills....
the British government has found it hard to cover its expensive obligations. So in addition to waiting lists, substandard care, and increased outsourcing, the government has adopted outright rationing to control costs.
Through a concept called “Health Technology Assessments,” the UK now empowers government-appointed experts to dictate which drugs, procedures, and treatments are available for public consumption. Tasked with controlling costs and watching the bottom line, these bureaucrats are expected to save money - not lives.
Already, this system has barred the purchase of Herceptin, a lifesaving breast-cancer drug. Alzheimer’s patients have had trouble obtaining Aricept, a drug which improves cognition in those afflicted with the degenerative disease.
The criteria for these denials of care are kept from the public. And patients who could be saved needlessly die.
Rationing, as history proves time and again, is always a recipe for horror.
The U.S. health care system certainly has its shortfalls. But the solution to America’s woes can’t be found in the UK - no matter how many movie tickets Mr. Moore sells.
http://www.earthtimes.org/
articl...se,131448.shtml
"Moore's proposal for a total government takeover of our health care system would be a recipe for disaster. Government-run and controlled health systems, such as those in the UK and Canada, institute care-rationing measures in order to control costs, which limit access to innovative, high-quality health care that can improve and even save lives.
In Canada for example, the average wait time to see a specialist is almost 18 weeks and for an MRI, the wait is eight weeks. Right now, approximately 875,000 Canadians are on waiting lists for medical treatment. Further, more than half of Canadian citizens and nearly 75% of doctors in the country agree that obtaining private insurance for services already covered under the current Canadian system will result in greater access to care."
The following soundbites and B-Roll share the stories of patients in Canada who have been unable to access the care they need, as well as thoughts from experts and advocates. For more information and statistics about government-controlled health care systems around the world, visit http://www.healthcare-america.or...dwide/
index.cfm.
The five-year survival rate for early diagnosed breast cancer patients in England is just 78 percent, compared to 98 percent in the U.S. 1
Between 1995 and 2001 the 15 cancer drugs approved in Europe and the U.S. took 468 days to reach patients in Europe versus 273 days in the U.S.2
http://www.healthcare-america.or...wide/
cancer.cfm
http://www.healthcare-america.or...dwide/
cuban.cfm
Cuban Health Care System Cares for Foreigners, But Not Cubans
Cuba is more concerned with projecting an image to the world than caring for its people.
Foreign visitors are given access to special, reserved hospitals not open to Cubans. Instead of the first rate care available, Cuban citizens must suffer unsanitary conditions without access to even the most basic medical supplies. 1
In 2005, Cuba sent more than 14,000 doctors to Venezuela in what some cynical Cubans call the “oil-for-doctors” program.2 As a result, some primary care clinics in Cuba have operated for years without a doctor. 3
Foreign cataract patients have been given priority over Cubans through “Operation Miracle.”4 Of the 500,000 surgeries of this type performed in Cuba between 2004 and 2006, less than 15% were for Cuban citizens. 5
Castro recently raised medical workers' salaries so that a doctor with two specialties earns the equivalent of $23 a month. This salary, however, does not cover things such as shampoo and serves as an incentive for these workers to take the $186 monthly stipend on average they will earn in Venezuela in addition to their $23. 6
Cuban patients must fend for themselves when it comes to antibiotics, food and even bed sheets.
Cuba has a “black market” for basic antibiotics such as penicillin. Those who are well connected can access the drugs, those who are not must cope as best they can. 7
Visitors to Cuba often smuggle medications into the country to their friends and family members who do not have access to basic medicines. 8
Due to lack of funding, patients often must bring their own bedclothes, sheets, food and fans to hospitals. 9
Officials within Cuba perpetuate myths about the health care system in order to bolster the country’s reputation.
Cuba’s maternal mortality rate is more than four times greater than that of the United States. 10
Medical training in Cuba has been reduced by two years, from six years of study and a minimum four years of residency, in an effort to more quickly replace doctors who have been sent abroad. 11
Stop being so random Snaps. Anecdote is never ever a valid research approach.
Are you aware that Herceptin is only suitable for a couple of percentage of women with breast cancer? That is, it is only useful for a specific and small number of breast cancers.
It's also VERY expensive. It is NOT BANNED. It's just not on the FREE list. Yes, that does mean that those without the ready funds can't afford to buy it, but ALL medicine is RATIONED in EVERY country in the world.
For countries like Britain and Australia, that rationing is transparent, as in, for example, the gov't determining which drugs will be on the subsidised list, and which won't - what is the best bang for the buck, for the most people, in other words.
And yes, the US having a very brief approval for drug release has had such terrific outcomes hasn't it Snaps? That's why other countries are far more cautious about approving drugs for use, and then slower still for going on the gov't free list. It's because other countries can look to the US to see exactly the detrimental outcomes of trusting drug companies.
How on Earth did somebody get the idea that the drug approval process in the U.S. is fast and easy? It's not.
I think the U.S. has more problem drugs becasue it has more drugs, period.
Thalidomide did not do any harm in the U.S. becasue it was not approved here.
See above - the comments from Snaps, who thinks that less than a year for approvals bests other countries.
Sherman--the article does not say the approvals are faster for drugs in the US. It says that once a drug is approved that it gets to the patients faster in the US.
"Between 1995 and 2001 the 15 cancer drugs approved in Europe and the U.S. took 468 days to reach patients in Europe versus 273 days in the U.S.2"
http://www.healthcare-america.or...wide/ cancer.cfm
I looked up what I think is this report. They studied 5 indicators. A lot of these questions are asking people's opinions. Americans may just be more apt to complain. Plus, I don't trust the interity of the UN. Their highest leaders take bribes from Saddam.
"WHO’s assessment system was based on five indicators: overall level of population health; health inequalities (or disparities) within the population; overall level of health system responsiveness (a combination of patient satisfaction and how well the system acts); distribution of responsiveness within the population (how well people of varying economic status find that they are served by the health system); and the distribution of the health system’s financial burden within the population (who pays the costs)."
http://www.photius.com/rankings/
...alth_ranks.html
The head of WHO in 2000 was a Norwegan Labor politician. I think she had been the Prime Minister.
This Norwegan paper says that the Norwegans knew about the oil-for-food corruption and Iraqi bribes but kept quiet.
http://www.aftenposten.no/
englis...icle1430674.ece
Norway led the UN sanctions committee in 2001, and was responsible for making sure that Iraq – still under Saddam Hussein at the time – and the companies dealing with Iraq didn't violate the sanctions.
But the Swedish foreign ministry report claims the Norwegians didn't blow the whistle on illegal fees charged by Iraq as part of the UN's "Oil for Food" program.
This from Dr. Gro Harlem Bruntland the head of WHO in 2000 when this report was written that you reference:
Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland told Dagbladet’s Aud Dalsegg on March 9, 2002:
“In the beginning I felt a local warmth around my ear. But the problem grew worse, and turned into a strong discomfort and headaches every time I used a mobile phone”.
At first she tried to avoid the pain by cutting her calls short, but this did not work. Nor was it sufficient to stop using the phones herself, because everyone around her, including at her workplace at the WHO headquarters in Geneva, used them.
“I gradually understood that I had developed sensitivity to this type of radiation and in order not to be suspected of being hysterical - that someone should believe that this was only something I imagined - I have made several tests: people have been in my office with their mobile phone hidden in their bag or pocket. Without my knowing whether it was off or on, we have tested my reaction. I have always reacted when the phone has been on – never when it is off. So there is no doubt.”
As for wireless home phones, Brundtland said :
“I get an instant reaction if I touch such a phone”
About her reactions to computers:
“If I hold a laptop in order to read what is on the screen it feels as if I get an electric shock up through my arms. So I must keep portable computers away from me. I have a regular desktop computer in my office, but only the secretary uses it. I have not noticed the same symptoms near it, but I turn it off as soon as I come in.”
"I don't trust the integrity of the UN. Their highest leaders take bribes from Saddam.
Now you're just being hysterically funny Snaps.
The US put and kept Saddam in power, until he got out of hand, as happens with despots.
With your entirely - 100% off topic - irrelevant story about one individual's reaction to mobiles, laptops, oxygen, the modern world, or whatever, you again fall into the ditch of anecdote. One person's experience is neither scientific, nor interesting. There is AMPLE scientific material and studies to draw upon, with valid conclusions, yet you choose to throw in an unscientific story instead.
Then you probably wonder about why some may have a problem with your credibility.
See, DrunkaPeeps? This is what happens when you don't post regularly. Your comments sections get used as an overflow parking lot for the Legend of Snapple's Never-Shutting Pie-Hole.
So Mr. Paine, do you believe what the UN says?
The Norwegians are saying that their own UN officials knew about the UN oil for food scandal and didn't tell.
Why should I believe the former Norwegian Labour Party Prime Minister--she is responsible for this UN document.
Caz--that lady with the weird ideas about cell phones and laptops is the person who was head of th WHO and put together that report.
Caz--if you look at the UN report, they asked people how they felt about many aspects of their health care.
Are "feelings" scientific. Look at how they got the data for the five categories.
Snapple, in the words of that great philosopher, Robert DiNiro, I got two words for you:
Shut the fuck up.
Flushing the silence with words is such a big job.
I deleted your last comment, snaps. No more health care.
Commenting by HaloScan
