re: Why does the healthcare debate essentially revolve around like 4% of Americans?

quote:

---

Seems like charities should be more than capable of handling the 4%.

---

quote:

---

but they have favorable patient satisfaction and for much cheaper.

---

quote:

---

Americans WANT the most sophisticated stuff, even if it costs a lot more and has marginal benefits compared to older stuff.

That applies to doctors, too. Americans are MUCH MUCH more likely to be referred to a specialist than a patient in a European nation.

In Europe, GPs play a much larger role.

---

quote:

---

TigerDoc

---

quote:

---

In 2000, when the report was issued, WHO was run by Gro Harlem Brundtland, a former prime minister of Norway and a socialist. She doesn’t think the results of a health system alone are important. Rather, she wants to know if the system is “fair.” In introducing the WHO report she wrote that while the goal of a health system “is to improve and protect health,” it also has “other intrinsic goals [that] are concerned with fairness in the way people pay for health care.” She is clear about the ideological factors she thinks are important: “Where health and responsiveness are concerned, achieving a high average level is not good enough: the goals of a health system must also include reducing inequalities, in ways that improve the situation of the worst-off. In this report attainment in relation to these goals provides the basis for measuring the performance of health systems

---

quote:

---

The 37th place ranking is often cited in today's overhaul debate, even though, in some ways, the U.S. actually ranked a lot higher. Specifically, it placed 15th overall, based on its performance in the five criteria. But for the most widely publicized form of its rankings, the WHO took the additional step of adjusting for national health expenditures per capita, to calculate each country's health-care bang for its bucks. Because the U.S. ranked first in spending, that adjustment pushed its ranking down to 37th

---

quote:

---

So these 5 criterion put together by a Malignant Norwegian Socialist Bitch drove US HealthCare down to "15th" in the world, and only THEN she factored in cost to drop us further to 37th.
Right?

Well . . .

. . not exactly.


COST HAD ALREADY BEEN FACTORED IN.

====================

Ranking Criterion for the 2000 WHO Report was conducted as follows:

25% of the ranking was judged on Responsiveness. "Responsiveness" was basically a consumer heath care rating score with cost elements factored in. The derivation of that score was never fully revealed.

25% of the rankings measured life expectancy stats. These stats too had little to do with quality of care. Life expectancy of course is influenced by factors such as murder rate, obesity, alcohol consumption, AND MILITARY RELATED CASUALTIES none of which address quality of care.

For example, the fact that America has the BEST survival rate OF ALL COUNTRIES for 13 of 16 cancer types was considered unimportant to the WHO. Similar results for Cardiac Care, Neonatal Care, etc were not remotely considered.

25% of the ranking was based on the uniformity of healthcare distribution. In other words, no matter the quality of care, as long as it was the same for each citizen, scoring in this category was very high. Since this is the law in Norway, this category helped the study's organizers raise their home country (Norway) significantly in the ratings.

25% was based on financial fairness as assessed by WHO criterion. More expensive treatments dropped nations in this category.

Thus, 75% or more of the ranking was not linked to quality of care at all, and most of that was related to cost assessment. In fact the WHO studdy was flatly rigged. All countries with socialized medicine would rank higher than the U.S. solely because they have socialized medicine. It does not matter if the quality of care is piss poor. So long as everyone gets that piss poor healthcare coverage, that country would receive max points for healthcare distribution

====================

Yet the US STILL RANKED FIFTEENTH!!!!

Given the rigged nature of the report, that is almost unbelievable.

It was not until costs were factored in a second time that we were dropped to 37th.

Any questions as to why that report was never generated again after 2000?

---

quote:

---

less cost growth

---

quote:

---

Hgh25

---

quote:

---

you don't care about fairness,

---