The best places to get sick
Apr 15th 2005 | 6:51 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
The best places to get sick
It was JBK who was posting disinformation on this subject.
He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
problem in Europe.
Krugman writes---
"Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
Voila, la verité.
The other issue is administrative costs, clearly out of line in the USA
(31%). One can imagine what they will be if Wall Street also gets hold
of the retirement system in the US.
Lastly, if you are traveling in France, sick, have your hotel concierge call
SOS Medicins or the local doctor on call. If you are not at a hotel, go
to the nearest Pharmacy or Police station and ask for help.
Earl
***
Paul Krugman: The best places to get sick
Paul Krugman The New York Times
Saturday, April 16, 2005
PRINCETON, New Jersey A dozen years ago, everyone was talking about an
American health care crisis. But then the issue faded from view: A few years
of good data led many people to conclude that HMOs and other innovations had
ended the historic trend of rising medical costs.
But the pause in the growth of health care costs in the 1990s proved
temporary. Medical costs are once again rising rapidly and the U.S. health
care system is once again in crisis. So now is a good time to ask why other
advanced countries manage to spend so much less than we Americans do, while
getting better results.
Before I get to the numbers, let me deal with the usual problem one
encounters when trying to draw lessons from foreign experience: Somebody is
sure to bring up the supposed horrors of Britain's government-run system,
which historically had long waiting lists for elective surgery.
In fact, Britain's system isn't as bad as its reputation - especially for
lower-paid workers, whose counterparts in the United States often have no
health insurance at all. And the waiting lists have gotten shorter.
But in any case, Britain is not the country we want to look at, because its
health care system is run on the cheap, with total spending per person only
40 percent as high as ours.
The countries that have something to teach us are those that do not pinch
pennies to the same extent - like France, Germany and Canada - but still
spend far less than we do. (Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are
much shorter than Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their
system to ours. France and Germany do not have a waiting list problem.)
Let me rattle off some numbers.
In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United
States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child. Of this,
$2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and
Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the
government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government
spending.
Amazing, isn't it? U.S. health care is so expensive that our government
spends more than the governments of other advanced countries, even though
the private sector pays a far higher share of the bills than anywhere else.
What do we get for all that money? Not much.
Most Americans probably do not know that we have substantially lower
life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced
countries. It would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this poor
performance is entirely the result of a defective health care system; social
factors, notably America's high poverty rate, surely play a role. Still, it
seems puzzling that we spend so much, with so little return.
A 2003 study published in Health Affairs (one of whose authors is my
Princeton colleague Uwe Reinhardt) tried to resolve that puzzle by comparing
a number of measures of health services across the advanced world. What the
authors found was that the United States scores high on high-tech services -
we have lots of MRIs - but on more prosaic measures, like the number of
doctors' visits and number of days spent in hospitals, America is only
average, or even below average. There is also direct evidence that identical
procedures cost far more in the United States than in other advanced
countries.
The authors concluded that Americans spend far more on health care than
their counterparts abroad - but they do not actually receive more care. The
title of their article? "It's the Prices, Stupid."
Why is the price of U.S. health care so high? One answer is doctors'
salaries: Although average wages in France and the United States are
similar, American doctors are paid much more than their French counterparts.
Another answer is that America's health care system drives a poor bargain
with the pharmaceutical industry.
Above all, a large part of America's health care spending goes into
paperwork. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated
that administrative costs took 31 cents out of every dollar the United
States spent on health care, compared with only 17 cents in Canada.
He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
problem in Europe.
Krugman writes---
"Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
Voila, la verité.
The other issue is administrative costs, clearly out of line in the USA
(31%). One can imagine what they will be if Wall Street also gets hold
of the retirement system in the US.
Lastly, if you are traveling in France, sick, have your hotel concierge call
SOS Medicins or the local doctor on call. If you are not at a hotel, go
to the nearest Pharmacy or Police station and ask for help.
Earl
***
Paul Krugman: The best places to get sick
Paul Krugman The New York Times
Saturday, April 16, 2005
PRINCETON, New Jersey A dozen years ago, everyone was talking about an
American health care crisis. But then the issue faded from view: A few years
of good data led many people to conclude that HMOs and other innovations had
ended the historic trend of rising medical costs.
But the pause in the growth of health care costs in the 1990s proved
temporary. Medical costs are once again rising rapidly and the U.S. health
care system is once again in crisis. So now is a good time to ask why other
advanced countries manage to spend so much less than we Americans do, while
getting better results.
Before I get to the numbers, let me deal with the usual problem one
encounters when trying to draw lessons from foreign experience: Somebody is
sure to bring up the supposed horrors of Britain's government-run system,
which historically had long waiting lists for elective surgery.
In fact, Britain's system isn't as bad as its reputation - especially for
lower-paid workers, whose counterparts in the United States often have no
health insurance at all. And the waiting lists have gotten shorter.
But in any case, Britain is not the country we want to look at, because its
health care system is run on the cheap, with total spending per person only
40 percent as high as ours.
The countries that have something to teach us are those that do not pinch
pennies to the same extent - like France, Germany and Canada - but still
spend far less than we do. (Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are
much shorter than Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their
system to ours. France and Germany do not have a waiting list problem.)
Let me rattle off some numbers.
In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United
States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child. Of this,
$2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and
Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the
government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government
spending.
Amazing, isn't it? U.S. health care is so expensive that our government
spends more than the governments of other advanced countries, even though
the private sector pays a far higher share of the bills than anywhere else.
What do we get for all that money? Not much.
Most Americans probably do not know that we have substantially lower
life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced
countries. It would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this poor
performance is entirely the result of a defective health care system; social
factors, notably America's high poverty rate, surely play a role. Still, it
seems puzzling that we spend so much, with so little return.
A 2003 study published in Health Affairs (one of whose authors is my
Princeton colleague Uwe Reinhardt) tried to resolve that puzzle by comparing
a number of measures of health services across the advanced world. What the
authors found was that the United States scores high on high-tech services -
we have lots of MRIs - but on more prosaic measures, like the number of
doctors' visits and number of days spent in hospitals, America is only
average, or even below average. There is also direct evidence that identical
procedures cost far more in the United States than in other advanced
countries.
The authors concluded that Americans spend far more on health care than
their counterparts abroad - but they do not actually receive more care. The
title of their article? "It's the Prices, Stupid."
Why is the price of U.S. health care so high? One answer is doctors'
salaries: Although average wages in France and the United States are
similar, American doctors are paid much more than their French counterparts.
Another answer is that America's health care system drives a poor bargain
with the pharmaceutical industry.
Above all, a large part of America's health care spending goes into
paperwork. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated
that administrative costs took 31 cents out of every dollar the United
States spent on health care, compared with only 17 cents in Canada.
Apr 15th 2005 | 10:38 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
In article <BE8682AE.60F93%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
<[email protected]> wrote:
> It was JBK who was posting disinformation on this subject.
> He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
> problem in Europe.
>
> Krugman writes---
>
> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>
> Voila, la veritŽ.
Alas, more of "your" 'scientific method' at work. Quoting and making
conclusions from an OPINION journalist.... very, very shabby,
jay
Sat Apr 16, 2005
mailto:[email protected]
>
> The other issue is administrative costs, clearly out of line in the USA
> (31%). One can imagine what they will be if Wall Street also gets hold
> of the retirement system in the US.
>
> Lastly, if you are traveling in France, sick, have your hotel concierge call
> SOS Medicins or the local doctor on call. If you are not at a hotel, go
> to the nearest Pharmacy or Police station and ask for help.
>
> Earl
>
> ***
>
>
> Paul Krugman: The best places to get sick
>
> Paul Krugman The New York Times
> Saturday, April 16, 2005
>
> PRINCETON, New Jersey A dozen years ago, everyone was talking about an
> American health care crisis. But then the issue faded from view: A few years
> of good data led many people to conclude that HMOs and other innovations had
> ended the historic trend of rising medical costs.
>
> But the pause in the growth of health care costs in the 1990s proved
> temporary. Medical costs are once again rising rapidly and the U.S. health
> care system is once again in crisis. So now is a good time to ask why other
> advanced countries manage to spend so much less than we Americans do, while
> getting better results.
>
> Before I get to the numbers, let me deal with the usual problem one
> encounters when trying to draw lessons from foreign experience: Somebody is
> sure to bring up the supposed horrors of Britain's government-run system,
> which historically had long waiting lists for elective surgery.
>
> In fact, Britain's system isn't as bad as its reputation - especially for
> lower-paid workers, whose counterparts in the United States often have no
> health insurance at all. And the waiting lists have gotten shorter.
>
> But in any case, Britain is not the country we want to look at, because its
> health care system is run on the cheap, with total spending per person only
> 40 percent as high as ours.
>
> The countries that have something to teach us are those that do not pinch
> pennies to the same extent - like France, Germany and Canada - but still
> spend far less than we do. (Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are
> much shorter than Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their
> system to ours. France and Germany do not have a waiting list problem.)
>
> Let me rattle off some numbers.
>
> In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United
> States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child. Of this,
> $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and
> Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the
> government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government
> spending.
>
> Amazing, isn't it? U.S. health care is so expensive that our government
> spends more than the governments of other advanced countries, even though
> the private sector pays a far higher share of the bills than anywhere else.
>
> What do we get for all that money? Not much.
>
> Most Americans probably do not know that we have substantially lower
> life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced
> countries. It would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this poor
> performance is entirely the result of a defective health care system; social
> factors, notably America's high poverty rate, surely play a role. Still, it
> seems puzzling that we spend so much, with so little return.
>
> A 2003 study published in Health Affairs (one of whose authors is my
> Princeton colleague Uwe Reinhardt) tried to resolve that puzzle by comparing
> a number of measures of health services across the advanced world. What the
> authors found was that the United States scores high on high-tech services -
> we have lots of MRIs - but on more prosaic measures, like the number of
> doctors' visits and number of days spent in hospitals, America is only
> average, or even below average. There is also direct evidence that identical
> procedures cost far more in the United States than in other advanced
> countries.
>
> The authors concluded that Americans spend far more on health care than
> their counterparts abroad - but they do not actually receive more care. The
> title of their article? "It's the Prices, Stupid."
>
> Why is the price of U.S. health care so high? One answer is doctors'
> salaries: Although average wages in France and the United States are
> similar, American doctors are paid much more than their French counterparts.
> Another answer is that America's health care system drives a poor bargain
> with the pharmaceutical industry.
>
> Above all, a large part of America's health care spending goes into
> paperwork. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated
> that administrative costs took 31 cents out of every dollar the United
> States spent on health care, compared with only 17 cents in Canada.
>
>
<[email protected]> wrote:
> It was JBK who was posting disinformation on this subject.
> He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
> problem in Europe.
>
> Krugman writes---
>
> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>
> Voila, la veritŽ.
Alas, more of "your" 'scientific method' at work. Quoting and making
conclusions from an OPINION journalist.... very, very shabby,
jay
Sat Apr 16, 2005
mailto:[email protected]
>
> The other issue is administrative costs, clearly out of line in the USA
> (31%). One can imagine what they will be if Wall Street also gets hold
> of the retirement system in the US.
>
> Lastly, if you are traveling in France, sick, have your hotel concierge call
> SOS Medicins or the local doctor on call. If you are not at a hotel, go
> to the nearest Pharmacy or Police station and ask for help.
>
> Earl
>
> ***
>
>
> Paul Krugman: The best places to get sick
>
> Paul Krugman The New York Times
> Saturday, April 16, 2005
>
> PRINCETON, New Jersey A dozen years ago, everyone was talking about an
> American health care crisis. But then the issue faded from view: A few years
> of good data led many people to conclude that HMOs and other innovations had
> ended the historic trend of rising medical costs.
>
> But the pause in the growth of health care costs in the 1990s proved
> temporary. Medical costs are once again rising rapidly and the U.S. health
> care system is once again in crisis. So now is a good time to ask why other
> advanced countries manage to spend so much less than we Americans do, while
> getting better results.
>
> Before I get to the numbers, let me deal with the usual problem one
> encounters when trying to draw lessons from foreign experience: Somebody is
> sure to bring up the supposed horrors of Britain's government-run system,
> which historically had long waiting lists for elective surgery.
>
> In fact, Britain's system isn't as bad as its reputation - especially for
> lower-paid workers, whose counterparts in the United States often have no
> health insurance at all. And the waiting lists have gotten shorter.
>
> But in any case, Britain is not the country we want to look at, because its
> health care system is run on the cheap, with total spending per person only
> 40 percent as high as ours.
>
> The countries that have something to teach us are those that do not pinch
> pennies to the same extent - like France, Germany and Canada - but still
> spend far less than we do. (Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are
> much shorter than Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their
> system to ours. France and Germany do not have a waiting list problem.)
>
> Let me rattle off some numbers.
>
> In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United
> States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child. Of this,
> $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and
> Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the
> government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government
> spending.
>
> Amazing, isn't it? U.S. health care is so expensive that our government
> spends more than the governments of other advanced countries, even though
> the private sector pays a far higher share of the bills than anywhere else.
>
> What do we get for all that money? Not much.
>
> Most Americans probably do not know that we have substantially lower
> life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced
> countries. It would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this poor
> performance is entirely the result of a defective health care system; social
> factors, notably America's high poverty rate, surely play a role. Still, it
> seems puzzling that we spend so much, with so little return.
>
> A 2003 study published in Health Affairs (one of whose authors is my
> Princeton colleague Uwe Reinhardt) tried to resolve that puzzle by comparing
> a number of measures of health services across the advanced world. What the
> authors found was that the United States scores high on high-tech services -
> we have lots of MRIs - but on more prosaic measures, like the number of
> doctors' visits and number of days spent in hospitals, America is only
> average, or even below average. There is also direct evidence that identical
> procedures cost far more in the United States than in other advanced
> countries.
>
> The authors concluded that Americans spend far more on health care than
> their counterparts abroad - but they do not actually receive more care. The
> title of their article? "It's the Prices, Stupid."
>
> Why is the price of U.S. health care so high? One answer is doctors'
> salaries: Although average wages in France and the United States are
> similar, American doctors are paid much more than their French counterparts.
> Another answer is that America's health care system drives a poor bargain
> with the pharmaceutical industry.
>
> Above all, a large part of America's health care spending goes into
> paperwork. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated
> that administrative costs took 31 cents out of every dollar the United
> States spent on health care, compared with only 17 cents in Canada.
>
>
Apr 15th 2005 | 11:05 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On 16/04/05 12:38, in article 160420050338405581%[email protected], "Go Fig"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <BE8682AE.60F93%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>>
>> Voila, la verité.
>
> Alas, more of "your" 'scientific method' at work. Quoting and making
> conclusions from an OPINION journalist.... very, very shabby,
>
The author is an academic! He happens also to publish in the
NYTimes. Glad to have him.
Earl
******
Paul R. Krugman
Professor of Economics and International Affairs
Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1013
609-258-1548, 609-258-0019(F)
Office: 414 Robertson Hall
e-mail: [email protected]
Biography
The author or editor of dozens of books and several hundred articles,
primarily about international trade and international finance, Krugman is
also nationally known for his twice-weekly columns in The New York Times and
his monthly columns in Fortune Magazine and Slate. He was the Ford
International Professor of International Economics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and has served on the U.S. Council of Economic
Advisers. He was the recipient of the 1991 John Bates Clark Medal, an award
given every two years by the American Economic Association to an economist
under 40. Ph.D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <BE8682AE.60F93%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>>
>> Voila, la verité.
>
> Alas, more of "your" 'scientific method' at work. Quoting and making
> conclusions from an OPINION journalist.... very, very shabby,
>
The author is an academic! He happens also to publish in the
NYTimes. Glad to have him.
Earl
******
Paul R. Krugman
Professor of Economics and International Affairs
Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1013
609-258-1548, 609-258-0019(F)
Office: 414 Robertson Hall
e-mail: [email protected]
Biography
The author or editor of dozens of books and several hundred articles,
primarily about international trade and international finance, Krugman is
also nationally known for his twice-weekly columns in The New York Times and
his monthly columns in Fortune Magazine and Slate. He was the Ford
International Professor of International Economics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and has served on the U.S. Council of Economic
Advisers. He was the recipient of the 1991 John Bates Clark Medal, an award
given every two years by the American Economic Association to an economist
under 40. Ph.D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Apr 16th 2005 | 12:12 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
Well, keep him to yourself, thank you
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
BE86BE2B.6108D%[email protected]...
> On 16/04/05 12:38, in article 160420050338405581%[email protected], "Go Fig"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <BE8682AE.60F93%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours.
>>> France
>>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>>> Voila, la verité.
>> Alas, more of "your" 'scientific method' at work. Quoting and making
>> conclusions from an OPINION journalist.... very, very shabby,
> The author is an academic! He happens also to publish in the
> NYTimes. Glad to have him.
> Earl
> ******
> Paul R. Krugman
> Professor of Economics and International Affairs
> Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1013
> 609-258-1548, 609-258-0019(F)
> Office: 414 Robertson Hall
> e-mail: [email protected]
> Biography
> The author or editor of dozens of books and several hundred articles,
> primarily about international trade and international finance, Krugman is
> also nationally known for his twice-weekly columns in The New York Times
> and
> his monthly columns in Fortune Magazine and Slate. He was the Ford
> International Professor of International Economics at the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology and has served on the U.S. Council of Economic
> Advisers. He was the recipient of the 1991 John Bates Clark Medal, an
> award
> given every two years by the American Economic Association to an economist
> under 40. Ph.D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
>
"Earl Evleth" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
BE86BE2B.6108D%[email protected]...
> On 16/04/05 12:38, in article 160420050338405581%[email protected], "Go Fig"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <BE8682AE.60F93%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours.
>>> France
>>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>>> Voila, la verité.
>> Alas, more of "your" 'scientific method' at work. Quoting and making
>> conclusions from an OPINION journalist.... very, very shabby,
> The author is an academic! He happens also to publish in the
> NYTimes. Glad to have him.
> Earl
> ******
> Paul R. Krugman
> Professor of Economics and International Affairs
> Woodrow Wilson School, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544-1013
> 609-258-1548, 609-258-0019(F)
> Office: 414 Robertson Hall
> e-mail: [email protected]
> Biography
> The author or editor of dozens of books and several hundred articles,
> primarily about international trade and international finance, Krugman is
> also nationally known for his twice-weekly columns in The New York Times
> and
> his monthly columns in Fortune Magazine and Slate. He was the Ford
> International Professor of International Economics at the Massachusetts
> Institute of Technology and has served on the U.S. Council of Economic
> Advisers. He was the recipient of the 1991 John Bates Clark Medal, an
> award
> given every two years by the American Economic Association to an economist
> under 40. Ph.D. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
>
Apr 16th 2005 | 1:26 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
Krugman is a left wing unrepentant nutbar just like you, only much
more qualified than you. See below for the actual truth.
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:51:58 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>It was JBK who was posting disinformation on this subject.
>He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
>problem in Europe.
>Krugman writes---
>"Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
Admits they exist in Canada and Britain doesn't he? They also exist
throughout Scandinavia for starters, and probably every other country
except perhaps these two. If it doesn't why didn't he list all of
them as not having them ace? And you are so ignorant you don't even
know that a lot of the Canadian health system is contracted with US
hospitals and facilities right across the border do you? Maybe that's
why their waiting lists are shorter huh?
>Voila, la verité.
La merde is more like it.
>The other issue is administrative costs, clearly out of line in the USA
>(31%). One can imagine what they will be if Wall Street also gets hold
>of the retirement system in the US.
If they get you off of it, it would be a major accomplishment. You
and he conveniently fail to point out that the vast majority of drug
and technological research and development is included in these costs
that the others benefit from and don't have to pay for don't you? You
and he also conveniently leave out the fact that Europeans are world
class liars when it comes to accurately reporting costs didn't you?
Like Sweden who counts anyone in endless training programs as being
employed for example. I'm sure these numbers are just as accurate.
And one wonders why everyone wants to come to US facilities for the
most serious health situations and doctors to study, learn and
practice with the US system being so bad doesn't one?
>Lastly, if you are traveling in France, sick, have your hotel concierge call
>SOS Medicins or the local doctor on call. If you are not at a hotel, go
>to the nearest Pharmacy or Police station and ask for help.
Sure and hope that someone is around in August to do something.
Instead of kill off 11,000 of its own citizens as it did in that
heatwave. Go ahead.
more qualified than you. See below for the actual truth.
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 08:51:58 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>It was JBK who was posting disinformation on this subject.
>He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
>problem in Europe.
>Krugman writes---
>"Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
Admits they exist in Canada and Britain doesn't he? They also exist
throughout Scandinavia for starters, and probably every other country
except perhaps these two. If it doesn't why didn't he list all of
them as not having them ace? And you are so ignorant you don't even
know that a lot of the Canadian health system is contracted with US
hospitals and facilities right across the border do you? Maybe that's
why their waiting lists are shorter huh?
>Voila, la verité.
La merde is more like it.
>The other issue is administrative costs, clearly out of line in the USA
>(31%). One can imagine what they will be if Wall Street also gets hold
>of the retirement system in the US.
If they get you off of it, it would be a major accomplishment. You
and he conveniently fail to point out that the vast majority of drug
and technological research and development is included in these costs
that the others benefit from and don't have to pay for don't you? You
and he also conveniently leave out the fact that Europeans are world
class liars when it comes to accurately reporting costs didn't you?
Like Sweden who counts anyone in endless training programs as being
employed for example. I'm sure these numbers are just as accurate.
And one wonders why everyone wants to come to US facilities for the
most serious health situations and doctors to study, learn and
practice with the US system being so bad doesn't one?
>Lastly, if you are traveling in France, sick, have your hotel concierge call
>SOS Medicins or the local doctor on call. If you are not at a hotel, go
>to the nearest Pharmacy or Police station and ask for help.
Sure and hope that someone is around in August to do something.
Instead of kill off 11,000 of its own citizens as it did in that
heatwave. Go ahead.
Apr 16th 2005 | 1:28 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:38:40 -0700, Go Fig <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <BE8682AE.60F93%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> It was JBK who was posting disinformation on this subject.
>> He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
>> problem in Europe.
>>
>> Krugman writes---
>>
>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>>
>> Voila, la verité.
>Alas, more of "your" 'scientific method' at work. Quoting and making
>conclusions from an OPINION journalist.... very, very shabby,
This guy isn't even a legitimate opinion journalist. He is a
self-admitted left wing unrepentant ideologue who makes no pretense of
objectivity. Heard him admit it myself on national television. A
nutbar just like Evleth. But no surprise since fools rarely differ in
their opinions.
>In article <BE8682AE.60F93%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> It was JBK who was posting disinformation on this subject.
>> He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
>> problem in Europe.
>>
>> Krugman writes---
>>
>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>>
>> Voila, la verité.
>Alas, more of "your" 'scientific method' at work. Quoting and making
>conclusions from an OPINION journalist.... very, very shabby,
This guy isn't even a legitimate opinion journalist. He is a
self-admitted left wing unrepentant ideologue who makes no pretense of
objectivity. Heard him admit it myself on national television. A
nutbar just like Evleth. But no surprise since fools rarely differ in
their opinions.
Apr 16th 2005 | 1:30 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 13:05:47 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 16/04/05 12:38, in article 160420050338405581%[email protected], "Go Fig"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <BE8682AE.60F93%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>>>
>>> Voila, la verité.
>>
>> Alas, more of "your" 'scientific method' at work. Quoting and making
>> conclusions from an OPINION journalist.... very, very shabby,
>>
>
>The author is an academic! He happens also to publish in the
>NYTimes. Glad to have him.
You would be. He's a self-infatuated ass just like you. What I
particularly love about him is that he was a loudmouth critic of
George Soros over his foreign exchange dealings, which criticism
promptly disappeared after Soros started all his Dummycrat
contributions trying to defeat Bush. Big surprise there too huh?
wrote:
>On 16/04/05 12:38, in article 160420050338405581%[email protected], "Go Fig"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article <BE8682AE.60F93%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>>>
>>> Voila, la verité.
>>
>> Alas, more of "your" 'scientific method' at work. Quoting and making
>> conclusions from an OPINION journalist.... very, very shabby,
>>
>
>The author is an academic! He happens also to publish in the
>NYTimes. Glad to have him.
You would be. He's a self-infatuated ass just like you. What I
particularly love about him is that he was a loudmouth critic of
George Soros over his foreign exchange dealings, which criticism
promptly disappeared after Soros started all his Dummycrat
contributions trying to defeat Bush. Big surprise there too huh?
Apr 16th 2005 | 2:16 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On 16/04/05 15:26, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It was JBK who was posting disinformation on this subject.
>> He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
>> problem in Europe.
>>
>> Krugman writes---
>>
>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>
> Admits they exist in Canada and Britain doesn't he?
You made a blanket accusation and now are trying to weasel out!
But let`s move on, now that your exaggeration has been exposed.
The most interesting figure in his article was that the administrative
costs for health care in the US are around 30%. Wow, what inefficiency
to a know-it-all can-do society of hyper efficient workaholics.
What is your reaction to that figure????
Don't dodge.
The next thing is the title of the commentary, "The best places to get
sick". Why does the US has a several years lower longevity, why is the
infant mortality rate 50% higher than in Europe.
Don't dodge.
Gotcha.
:-)
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> It was JBK who was posting disinformation on this subject.
>> He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
>> problem in Europe.
>>
>> Krugman writes---
>>
>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>
> Admits they exist in Canada and Britain doesn't he?
You made a blanket accusation and now are trying to weasel out!
But let`s move on, now that your exaggeration has been exposed.
The most interesting figure in his article was that the administrative
costs for health care in the US are around 30%. Wow, what inefficiency
to a know-it-all can-do society of hyper efficient workaholics.
What is your reaction to that figure????
Don't dodge.
The next thing is the title of the commentary, "The best places to get
sick". Why does the US has a several years lower longevity, why is the
infant mortality rate 50% higher than in Europe.
Don't dodge.
Gotcha.
:-)
Apr 16th 2005 | 2:21 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
<[email protected]> wrote:
> You
> and he conveniently fail to point out that the vast majority of drug
> and technological research and development is included in these costs
> that the others benefit from and don't have to pay for don't you?
How do the Swiss manage to have a lot of technological research at some
of the largest drug factories in the world, and at the same time a
(mainly private) health care system, much cheaper and efficient than the
US one?
--
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: [email protected]
Home page: http://www.angelfire.com/ar/archivarius
(musicologia pratica)
> You
> and he conveniently fail to point out that the vast majority of drug
> and technological research and development is included in these costs
> that the others benefit from and don't have to pay for don't you?
How do the Swiss manage to have a lot of technological research at some
of the largest drug factories in the world, and at the same time a
(mainly private) health care system, much cheaper and efficient than the
US one?
--
Luca Logi - Firenze - Italy e-mail: [email protected]
Home page: http://www.angelfire.com/ar/archivarius
(musicologia pratica)
Apr 16th 2005 | 2:26 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
> From: Go Fig <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:38:40 -0700
> Subject: Re: The best places to get sick
>
> In article <BE8682AE.60F93%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It was JBK who was posting disinformation on this subject.
>> He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
>> problem in Europe.
>>
>> Krugman writes---
>>
>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>>
>> Voila, la verité.
>
> Alas, more of "your" 'scientific method' at work. Quoting and making
> conclusions from an OPINION journalist.... very, very shabby,
What's very shabby is your criticism. We do not have waiting lists here in
France. I repeat, we do not have waiting lists here in France. I know this
for a fact, and the fact that an OPINION journalist reports this does not
make it less of a fact.
Last year I had cataract operations. On April 6, my ophthalmologist told me
I needed cataract operations in both eyes. I had the left eye operated on
on 21 April. I had the right eye operated on on 5 May. Exactly one month
passed between the original diagnosis and the end of the operations. Where
do you see a "waiting list" in all that?
Incidentally my operations were successful beyond my wildest expectations.
I now read again without glasses.
Donna Evleth
>
> jay
> Sat Apr 16, 2005
> mailto:[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The other issue is administrative costs, clearly out of line in the USA
>> (31%). One can imagine what they will be if Wall Street also gets hold
>> of the retirement system in the US.
>>
>> Lastly, if you are traveling in France, sick, have your hotel concierge call
>> SOS Medicins or the local doctor on call. If you are not at a hotel, go
>> to the nearest Pharmacy or Police station and ask for help.
>>
>> Earl
>>
>> ***
>>
>>
>> Paul Krugman: The best places to get sick
>>
>> Paul Krugman The New York Times
>> Saturday, April 16, 2005
>>
>> PRINCETON, New Jersey A dozen years ago, everyone was talking about an
>> American health care crisis. But then the issue faded from view: A few years
>> of good data led many people to conclude that HMOs and other innovations had
>> ended the historic trend of rising medical costs.
>>
>> But the pause in the growth of health care costs in the 1990s proved
>> temporary. Medical costs are once again rising rapidly and the U.S. health
>> care system is once again in crisis. So now is a good time to ask why other
>> advanced countries manage to spend so much less than we Americans do, while
>> getting better results.
>>
>> Before I get to the numbers, let me deal with the usual problem one
>> encounters when trying to draw lessons from foreign experience: Somebody is
>> sure to bring up the supposed horrors of Britain's government-run system,
>> which historically had long waiting lists for elective surgery.
>>
>> In fact, Britain's system isn't as bad as its reputation - especially for
>> lower-paid workers, whose counterparts in the United States often have no
>> health insurance at all. And the waiting lists have gotten shorter.
>>
>> But in any case, Britain is not the country we want to look at, because its
>> health care system is run on the cheap, with total spending per person only
>> 40 percent as high as ours.
>>
>> The countries that have something to teach us are those that do not pinch
>> pennies to the same extent - like France, Germany and Canada - but still
>> spend far less than we do. (Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are
>> much shorter than Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their
>> system to ours. France and Germany do not have a waiting list problem.)
>>
>> Let me rattle off some numbers.
>>
>> In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United
>> States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child. Of this,
>> $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and
>> Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the
>> government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government
>> spending.
>>
>> Amazing, isn't it? U.S. health care is so expensive that our government
>> spends more than the governments of other advanced countries, even though
>> the private sector pays a far higher share of the bills than anywhere else.
>>
>> What do we get for all that money? Not much.
>>
>> Most Americans probably do not know that we have substantially lower
>> life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced
>> countries. It would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this poor
>> performance is entirely the result of a defective health care system; social
>> factors, notably America's high poverty rate, surely play a role. Still, it
>> seems puzzling that we spend so much, with so little return.
>>
>> A 2003 study published in Health Affairs (one of whose authors is my
>> Princeton colleague Uwe Reinhardt) tried to resolve that puzzle by comparing
>> a number of measures of health services across the advanced world. What the
>> authors found was that the United States scores high on high-tech services -
>> we have lots of MRIs - but on more prosaic measures, like the number of
>> doctors' visits and number of days spent in hospitals, America is only
>> average, or even below average. There is also direct evidence that identical
>> procedures cost far more in the United States than in other advanced
>> countries.
>>
>> The authors concluded that Americans spend far more on health care than
>> their counterparts abroad - but they do not actually receive more care. The
>> title of their article? "It's the Prices, Stupid."
>>
>> Why is the price of U.S. health care so high? One answer is doctors'
>> salaries: Although average wages in France and the United States are
>> similar, American doctors are paid much more than their French counterparts.
>> Another answer is that America's health care system drives a poor bargain
>> with the pharmaceutical industry.
>>
>> Above all, a large part of America's health care spending goes into
>> paperwork. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated
>> that administrative costs took 31 cents out of every dollar the United
>> States spent on health care, compared with only 17 cents in Canada.
>>
>>
>>
> Newsgroups: rec.travel.europe
> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:38:40 -0700
> Subject: Re: The best places to get sick
>
> In article <BE8682AE.60F93%[email protected]>, Earl Evleth
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It was JBK who was posting disinformation on this subject.
>> He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
>> problem in Europe.
>>
>> Krugman writes---
>>
>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>>
>> Voila, la verité.
>
> Alas, more of "your" 'scientific method' at work. Quoting and making
> conclusions from an OPINION journalist.... very, very shabby,
What's very shabby is your criticism. We do not have waiting lists here in
France. I repeat, we do not have waiting lists here in France. I know this
for a fact, and the fact that an OPINION journalist reports this does not
make it less of a fact.
Last year I had cataract operations. On April 6, my ophthalmologist told me
I needed cataract operations in both eyes. I had the left eye operated on
on 21 April. I had the right eye operated on on 5 May. Exactly one month
passed between the original diagnosis and the end of the operations. Where
do you see a "waiting list" in all that?
Incidentally my operations were successful beyond my wildest expectations.
I now read again without glasses.
Donna Evleth
>
> jay
> Sat Apr 16, 2005
> mailto:[email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> The other issue is administrative costs, clearly out of line in the USA
>> (31%). One can imagine what they will be if Wall Street also gets hold
>> of the retirement system in the US.
>>
>> Lastly, if you are traveling in France, sick, have your hotel concierge call
>> SOS Medicins or the local doctor on call. If you are not at a hotel, go
>> to the nearest Pharmacy or Police station and ask for help.
>>
>> Earl
>>
>> ***
>>
>>
>> Paul Krugman: The best places to get sick
>>
>> Paul Krugman The New York Times
>> Saturday, April 16, 2005
>>
>> PRINCETON, New Jersey A dozen years ago, everyone was talking about an
>> American health care crisis. But then the issue faded from view: A few years
>> of good data led many people to conclude that HMOs and other innovations had
>> ended the historic trend of rising medical costs.
>>
>> But the pause in the growth of health care costs in the 1990s proved
>> temporary. Medical costs are once again rising rapidly and the U.S. health
>> care system is once again in crisis. So now is a good time to ask why other
>> advanced countries manage to spend so much less than we Americans do, while
>> getting better results.
>>
>> Before I get to the numbers, let me deal with the usual problem one
>> encounters when trying to draw lessons from foreign experience: Somebody is
>> sure to bring up the supposed horrors of Britain's government-run system,
>> which historically had long waiting lists for elective surgery.
>>
>> In fact, Britain's system isn't as bad as its reputation - especially for
>> lower-paid workers, whose counterparts in the United States often have no
>> health insurance at all. And the waiting lists have gotten shorter.
>>
>> But in any case, Britain is not the country we want to look at, because its
>> health care system is run on the cheap, with total spending per person only
>> 40 percent as high as ours.
>>
>> The countries that have something to teach us are those that do not pinch
>> pennies to the same extent - like France, Germany and Canada - but still
>> spend far less than we do. (Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are
>> much shorter than Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their
>> system to ours. France and Germany do not have a waiting list problem.)
>>
>> Let me rattle off some numbers.
>>
>> In 2002, the latest year for which comparable data are available, the United
>> States spent $5,267 on health care for each man, woman and child. Of this,
>> $2,364, or 45 percent, was government spending, mainly on Medicare and
>> Medicaid. Canada spent $2,931 per person, of which $2,048 came from the
>> government. France spent $2,736 per person, of which $2,080 was government
>> spending.
>>
>> Amazing, isn't it? U.S. health care is so expensive that our government
>> spends more than the governments of other advanced countries, even though
>> the private sector pays a far higher share of the bills than anywhere else.
>>
>> What do we get for all that money? Not much.
>>
>> Most Americans probably do not know that we have substantially lower
>> life-expectancy and higher infant-mortality figures than other advanced
>> countries. It would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that this poor
>> performance is entirely the result of a defective health care system; social
>> factors, notably America's high poverty rate, surely play a role. Still, it
>> seems puzzling that we spend so much, with so little return.
>>
>> A 2003 study published in Health Affairs (one of whose authors is my
>> Princeton colleague Uwe Reinhardt) tried to resolve that puzzle by comparing
>> a number of measures of health services across the advanced world. What the
>> authors found was that the United States scores high on high-tech services -
>> we have lots of MRIs - but on more prosaic measures, like the number of
>> doctors' visits and number of days spent in hospitals, America is only
>> average, or even below average. There is also direct evidence that identical
>> procedures cost far more in the United States than in other advanced
>> countries.
>>
>> The authors concluded that Americans spend far more on health care than
>> their counterparts abroad - but they do not actually receive more care. The
>> title of their article? "It's the Prices, Stupid."
>>
>> Why is the price of U.S. health care so high? One answer is doctors'
>> salaries: Although average wages in France and the United States are
>> similar, American doctors are paid much more than their French counterparts.
>> Another answer is that America's health care system drives a poor bargain
>> with the pharmaceutical industry.
>>
>> Above all, a large part of America's health care spending goes into
>> paperwork. A 2003 study in The New England Journal of Medicine estimated
>> that administrative costs took 31 cents out of every dollar the United
>> States spent on health care, compared with only 17 cents in Canada.
>>
>>
>>
Apr 16th 2005 | 2:32 am
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:16:07 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 16/04/05 15:26, in article [email protected],
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> It was JBK who was posting disinformation on this subject.
>>> He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
>>> problem in Europe.
>>>
>>> Krugman writes---
>>>
>>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>>
>> Admits they exist in Canada and Britain doesn't he?
>You made a blanket accusation and now are trying to weasel out!
Of what ace? Show me any other countries in Europe that do not have
waiting lists, just like I said.
>But let`s move on, now that your exaggeration has been exposed.
What exaggeration moron? You mean like Krugman who can come up with
all of two European countries that don't have them? Like I said, only
some idiot like you thinks that he wouldn't have listed everyone he
could find that didn't have them if they existed and he couldn't be
disproved. After all, he is a left wing nutbar just like you war
hero.
>The most interesting figure in his article was that the administrative
>costs for health care in the US are around 30%. Wow, what inefficiency
>to a know-it-all can-do society of hyper efficient workaholics.
Only to some dumbell like you who likes false numbers to try to prove
some dimwitted view of theirs.
>What is your reaction to that figure????
Why don't you read my last post where I gave just that?
>Don't dodge.
I didn't. You just can't read.
>The next thing is the title of the commentary, "The best places to get
>sick". Why does the US has a several years lower longevity, why is the
>infant mortality rate 50% higher than in Europe.
Because it has tons of illegal immigrants that Europe doesn't have.
Because it has a much more diverse population that Europe has which
unsurprisingly mimics the world at large which if you bothered tracing
back you would find that the US on average provides much better care
than they get where they came from. Because lots of these people
refuse to get the care that is available to them. Among a myriad of
other reasons moron.
>Don't dodge.
>Gotcha.
The only thing you've got is an empty head with a complete lack of
knowledge about virtually everything you post about. Just like this.
You're too dumb to know to separate these statistics you blather about
into relevant categories and then do comparisons. Like if you
separate out those of European background and compare those to the
European ones you would find I'm sure that they differ little, if any,
from the European ones, just like if you separated those from
undeveloped countries you would find that they get far better medical
care here than wherever they came from. But that would take a brain
which you completely lack.
wrote:
>On 16/04/05 15:26, in article [email protected],
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> It was JBK who was posting disinformation on this subject.
>>> He used the word "waiting lists" as if it were a general
>>> problem in Europe.
>>>
>>> Krugman writes---
>>>
>>> "Yes, Canada also has waiting lists, but they are much shorter than
>>> Britain's, and Canadians overwhelmingly prefer their system to ours. France
>>> and Germany do not have a waiting list problem."
>>
>> Admits they exist in Canada and Britain doesn't he?
>You made a blanket accusation and now are trying to weasel out!
Of what ace? Show me any other countries in Europe that do not have
waiting lists, just like I said.
>But let`s move on, now that your exaggeration has been exposed.
What exaggeration moron? You mean like Krugman who can come up with
all of two European countries that don't have them? Like I said, only
some idiot like you thinks that he wouldn't have listed everyone he
could find that didn't have them if they existed and he couldn't be
disproved. After all, he is a left wing nutbar just like you war
hero.
>The most interesting figure in his article was that the administrative
>costs for health care in the US are around 30%. Wow, what inefficiency
>to a know-it-all can-do society of hyper efficient workaholics.
Only to some dumbell like you who likes false numbers to try to prove
some dimwitted view of theirs.
>What is your reaction to that figure????
Why don't you read my last post where I gave just that?
>Don't dodge.
I didn't. You just can't read.
>The next thing is the title of the commentary, "The best places to get
>sick". Why does the US has a several years lower longevity, why is the
>infant mortality rate 50% higher than in Europe.
Because it has tons of illegal immigrants that Europe doesn't have.
Because it has a much more diverse population that Europe has which
unsurprisingly mimics the world at large which if you bothered tracing
back you would find that the US on average provides much better care
than they get where they came from. Because lots of these people
refuse to get the care that is available to them. Among a myriad of
other reasons moron.
>Don't dodge.
>Gotcha.
The only thing you've got is an empty head with a complete lack of
knowledge about virtually everything you post about. Just like this.
You're too dumb to know to separate these statistics you blather about
into relevant categories and then do comparisons. Like if you
separate out those of European background and compare those to the
European ones you would find I'm sure that they differ little, if any,
from the European ones, just like if you separated those from
undeveloped countries you would find that they get far better medical
care here than wherever they came from. But that would take a brain
which you completely lack.
Apr 16th 2005 | 2:42 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
jbk had a nice chat with Earl Evleth:
> moron
> idiot like you
> he is a left wing nutbar
> some dumbell like you
> moron
> you're too dumb to know ...
I'm in need of some genuine pieces of U.S. text for education purposes.
Would you allow me to use your contribution?
--
Low Countries By Bike - http://lowcountriesbybike.info
Riding on two wheels in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany
> moron
> idiot like you
> he is a left wing nutbar
> some dumbell like you
> moron
> you're too dumb to know ...
I'm in need of some genuine pieces of U.S. text for education purposes.
Would you allow me to use your contribution?
--
Low Countries By Bike - http://lowcountriesbybike.info
Riding on two wheels in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany
Apr 16th 2005 | 3:28 am
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On 16/04/05 16:32, in article [email protected],
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:16:07 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> You made a blanket accusation and now are trying to weasel out!
>
> Of what ace? Show me any other countries in Europe that do not have
> waiting lists, just like I said.
You made the waiting list accusation, not really know, you produce
those which do.
Krugman said Germany and France, so give us a list of European countries
which do have a waiting list and how long the wait is for each time
of medical treatment.
>>
>> But let`s move on, now that your exaggeration has been exposed.
>
> What exaggeration moron?
The waiting list exaggeration, stupid. Don't dodge, come up with "a list".
Belgium, Switzerland, Austria who?
>>
>> The most interesting figure in his article was that the administrative
>> costs for health care in the US are around 30%. Wow, what inefficiency
>> to a know-it-all can-do society of hyper efficient workaholics.
>
> Only to some dumbell like you who likes false numbers to try to prove
> some dimwitted view of theirs.
No, the 25-30% figure has been around a long time. I attended a meeting of
medical professionals here in Paris in mid-1990s and a figure of 25% was
discussed then. If you do a LITTLE research you'll find numbers of this
order.
And it has been going on a LONG TIME
FOR INSTANCE
New England Journal of Medicine 324:1253-1258 (May 2), 1991
"In 1987 health care administration cost between $96.8 billion and $120.4
billion in the United States, amounting in 19.3 to 24.1 percent of total
spending on health care, or $400 to $497 per capita. In Canada, between 8.4
and 11.1 percent of health care spending ($117 to $156 per capita) was
devoted to administration."
Into the 2000s the situation had not improved,
******
Administrative Costs in Market-Driven U.S. Health Care System Far Higher
Than in Canada¹s Single-Payer System, New Research Shows With National
Health Insurance, United States Could Cover the Uninsured
WASHINGTON, D.C. * Bureaucracy in the health care system accounts for about
a third of total U.S. health care spending * a sum so great that if the
United states were to have a national health insurance program, the
administrative savings alone would be enough to provide health care coverage
for all the uninsured in this country, according to two new studies.
****
From http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/rele...oolhimmel.html
we find that in 1999 from a study (New England Journal of Medicine Study)
The authors found that bureaucracy accounted for at least 31% of total U.S.
health spending in 1999 vs. 16.7% in Canada. They also found that
administration has grown far faster in the U.S. than in Canada. Between 1969
and 1999, administrative and clerical personnel in the U.S. grew from 18.2%
to 27.3% of the health work force. In contrast, the administrative/clerical
share of Canada's health labor force rose modestly, from 16.0% in 1971 to
19.1% in 1996. These labor force figures exclude the 1.65 million employees
at U.S. insurance companies and agencies, as well as the small number of
private insurance employees in Canada.
>> The next thing is the title of the commentary, "The best places to get
>> sick". Why does the US has a several years lower longevity, why is the
>> infant mortality rate 50% higher than in Europe.
>
> Because it has tons of illegal immigrants that Europe doesn't have.
That is why American black infants dies at a greater rate?? Look
at the numbers do-do.
>> Gotcha.
Gotcha again :-)
Have you always been this ignorant??
Earl
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:16:07 +0200, Earl Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> You made a blanket accusation and now are trying to weasel out!
>
> Of what ace? Show me any other countries in Europe that do not have
> waiting lists, just like I said.
You made the waiting list accusation, not really know, you produce
those which do.
Krugman said Germany and France, so give us a list of European countries
which do have a waiting list and how long the wait is for each time
of medical treatment.
>>
>> But let`s move on, now that your exaggeration has been exposed.
>
> What exaggeration moron?
The waiting list exaggeration, stupid. Don't dodge, come up with "a list".
Belgium, Switzerland, Austria who?
>>
>> The most interesting figure in his article was that the administrative
>> costs for health care in the US are around 30%. Wow, what inefficiency
>> to a know-it-all can-do society of hyper efficient workaholics.
>
> Only to some dumbell like you who likes false numbers to try to prove
> some dimwitted view of theirs.
No, the 25-30% figure has been around a long time. I attended a meeting of
medical professionals here in Paris in mid-1990s and a figure of 25% was
discussed then. If you do a LITTLE research you'll find numbers of this
order.
And it has been going on a LONG TIME
FOR INSTANCE
New England Journal of Medicine 324:1253-1258 (May 2), 1991
"In 1987 health care administration cost between $96.8 billion and $120.4
billion in the United States, amounting in 19.3 to 24.1 percent of total
spending on health care, or $400 to $497 per capita. In Canada, between 8.4
and 11.1 percent of health care spending ($117 to $156 per capita) was
devoted to administration."
Into the 2000s the situation had not improved,
******
Administrative Costs in Market-Driven U.S. Health Care System Far Higher
Than in Canada¹s Single-Payer System, New Research Shows With National
Health Insurance, United States Could Cover the Uninsured
WASHINGTON, D.C. * Bureaucracy in the health care system accounts for about
a third of total U.S. health care spending * a sum so great that if the
United states were to have a national health insurance program, the
administrative savings alone would be enough to provide health care coverage
for all the uninsured in this country, according to two new studies.
****
From http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/rele...oolhimmel.html
we find that in 1999 from a study (New England Journal of Medicine Study)
The authors found that bureaucracy accounted for at least 31% of total U.S.
health spending in 1999 vs. 16.7% in Canada. They also found that
administration has grown far faster in the U.S. than in Canada. Between 1969
and 1999, administrative and clerical personnel in the U.S. grew from 18.2%
to 27.3% of the health work force. In contrast, the administrative/clerical
share of Canada's health labor force rose modestly, from 16.0% in 1971 to
19.1% in 1996. These labor force figures exclude the 1.65 million employees
at U.S. insurance companies and agencies, as well as the small number of
private insurance employees in Canada.
>> The next thing is the title of the commentary, "The best places to get
>> sick". Why does the US has a several years lower longevity, why is the
>> infant mortality rate 50% higher than in Europe.
>
> Because it has tons of illegal immigrants that Europe doesn't have.
That is why American black infants dies at a greater rate?? Look
at the numbers do-do.
>> Gotcha.
Gotcha again :-)
Have you always been this ignorant??
Earl
Apr 16th 2005 | 3:32 am
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
On 16/04/05 16:42, in article [email protected],
"Erick T. Barkhuis" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> jbk had a nice chat with Earl Evleth:
>
>> moron
>> idiot like you
>> he is a left wing nutbar
>> some dumbell like you
>> moron
>> you're too dumb to know ...
>
> I'm in need of some genuine pieces of U.S. text for education purposes.
> Would you allow me to use your contribution?
JBK is intellectually dishonest, which is why he uses insults in the place
of arguments. He can't stand up and argue like a "man".
Note, that I usually don't occupy myself with his postings because they
lack substance, but I do post if he is so very wrong so that others
do not remain uninformed.
Earl
"Erick T. Barkhuis" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> jbk had a nice chat with Earl Evleth:
>
>> moron
>> idiot like you
>> he is a left wing nutbar
>> some dumbell like you
>> moron
>> you're too dumb to know ...
>
> I'm in need of some genuine pieces of U.S. text for education purposes.
> Would you allow me to use your contribution?
JBK is intellectually dishonest, which is why he uses insults in the place
of arguments. He can't stand up and argue like a "man".
Note, that I usually don't occupy myself with his postings because they
lack substance, but I do post if he is so very wrong so that others
do not remain uninformed.
Earl
Apr 16th 2005 | 3:35 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The best places to get sick
Earl Evleth [on Sat, 16 Apr 2005 17:28:44 +0200] wrote:
> so give us a list of European countries which do have a waiting list
> and how long the wait is for each time of medical treatment.
That doesn't appear to be a fair request, because waiting lists are
different between hospitals for various medical treatments.
Here's a Dutch website showing waiting lists. Even if you don't
understand Dutch, you'll see that there is no such thing as "average
waiting list size".
<http://www.rivm.nl/vtv/object_class/atl_wchtziekenhuiszorg.html>
--
Low Countries By Bike - http://lowcountriesbybike.info
Riding on two wheels in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany
> so give us a list of European countries which do have a waiting list
> and how long the wait is for each time of medical treatment.
That doesn't appear to be a fair request, because waiting lists are
different between hospitals for various medical treatments.
Here's a Dutch website showing waiting lists. Even if you don't
understand Dutch, you'll see that there is no such thing as "average
waiting list size".
<http://www.rivm.nl/vtv/object_class/atl_wchtziekenhuiszorg.html>
--
Low Countries By Bike - http://lowcountriesbybike.info
Riding on two wheels in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany
