surly

Well your presenting argument by assertion and put down.

fatbrit

And there is really nowhere to go with that -- because I have no idea what you mean. Is it just me or did s/he just write nonsensical garbage?

snowbunny

Read the first two words as "Well, you're...." and it makes more sense.

By "assertion" I think "asserting opinion as fact" would be the intent. This is of course my opinion.

fatbrit

A little I suppose. We gave him facts -- WHO facts. He didn't like those but wouldn't suggest an alternative. I don't think there's really anywhere else to go with him.

What's the put down thing? Is his dog ill or something?

snowbunny

Don't know -- but I don't know what's up with saying something is a WHO fact and then saying that he made it up. I'm glad the current system worked for him. Instead of simply defending it, I'd like to see him help those who weren't as fortunate. I'm not holding my breath, though.

fatbrit

Neither I am. At least he's a rich twat (pictures of Paris in the photo gallery!) so it's understandable. The Walmart associate, sorry Alvero's Market employee, who fails to get it is much more disturbing.

Tracym

Did you happen to notice in a prior thread, another poster put up more recent information, and the UK was ranked BELOW the US?

Probably you didn't - and a reply was "oh who cares about rankings". Well that's honesly probably true, depending upon EXACTLY what's being ranked.

The WHO ranked healthcare systems on a NUMBER of critera - I'm not sure quality of hospital care was even one of them. Access to all, cost, fairness, responsiveness - all of those were in there I believe.

So you flogging the guy with an outdated WHO study is really quite meaningless. It's apples and oranges - whether the actual hospital care is good, or whether the whole system is good and fair and low-cost, etc.

And what the other poster understands, and you don't seem to, is that to REALLY understand statistics, you have to see what's behind them - how they were derived, and what the really mean. For example, what exactly were the WHO's criteria - and how were those weighted to derive a ranking.

US care - when it's top notch, which he had, is great. It isn't equally available to all. We know this.

And I'm sorry - I agree - you often argue by asserting your opinion, stated as fact, more and more vehemently, and insulting others - not a very effective method.

elfman

I'm really surprised you didn't win the "most boring poster" in the recent end of year polls.

Tracym

Feel free to vote for me - I'll do the same for you.

Or is there a most obnoxious instead? You might win my vote there.

fatbrit

I'll argue the premise that US health care costs twice as much and produces low to middling results on any figures you care to produce. He's arguing on his personal experience and you're arguing on hot air, dismissing them before you look. Produce the figures from any reputable source you wish and we'll have a look. If you don't like WHO, go find some others.

Tracym

I looked at the WHO study, a while ago. As best I could. And I am not dismissing it anyway. I have NEVER said I dismissed it, or didn't believe it, or anything like that.

What I did say is that what I would LOVE to read, if I could find it on the net (haven't managed yet) is the actual study, with the criteria they used, and how they calculated their results.

All I have been able to find is the end results.

If you can find the actual study, I would be grateful and delighted to look at it (not sarcastic, I mean that seriously).

I will not dispute that the US system is unfair, or expensive. Quality of care... that I haven't seen data on yet, I don't think. It can be excellent. Whether it usually is... dunno.

The WHO rated US first in the world on something like "responsiveness" - I'd like to see just what exactly that is.

Not surprisingly, the US did poorly on fairness, and expense.

I'l be happy to discuss it, or any other study - but statistics can be truly misleading on their own - it's easy to get them to say anything you want practically. I know, I studied them.

Not saying the WHO did that - but I do not think that quality of care was a main part of that study. I could be wrong - and I would know that if I could find the actual study, not just the results.

If you remember in recent discussions, you and I really argue about the best way to implement healthcare for all - how much government involvement at either the level of payment, or running actual hospitals and doctors. NOT whether or not everyone should have it.

Perhaps if we both play nice, we might find some interesting stuff.

lapin_windstar

(Well-run) socialized healthcare systems are great at providing universal, critical and preventative care. They are not so good at providing cream stationery, thick carpets, pointless tests, disputes over billing, and pharma companies pestering individual quacks to prescribe their drug. I think it's a trade off worth making.

PS: healthcare is also a huge drag on labor mobility and productivity in the US: many people won't take new jobs in new places because they don't want to risk falling through the healthcare net. I believe this partially explains why illegal immigrants are filling skilled and semi-skilled jobs in booming Western states while people in Michigan are desperately holding on to jobs that are obviously going down, and their employers can't afford to buy them out.

Bob

That's the thing, there's good care here, there's crap care here. It costs a lot more for it.

You can have good or crap care on the NHS, but even if your poor, it's a level playing field.

Tracym

That's true - mostly. Of course, in the UK, if there's a long wait, those with money can afford to pay privately, where the poor would have to wait.

But it is certainly more level than the US.

another bloody yank

Couldn't come up with anything after '69 eh? It gets more difficult after that, doesn't it?

Implementing a system would be easy. Insuring that it would provide high quality care, efficiently and for reasonable cost...I'll believe it when I see it.

BTW, I will probably vote for some type of NHS when it comes up. I would be willing to give it a chance. I also fully expect I would come to regret it.


It is silly, but who knows what they'll do? God only knows what the "options" (if any) would be.