|
|
|
Reply
| | From: Noserose (Original Message) | Sent: 10/28/2008 7:12 PM |
The World's Healthiest Countries There are lots of reasons to envy residents of Northern Europe. Each day they get to take in raw, dramatic landscapes, stunning architecture and world-class shopping. But, more important, they know a thing or two about health and wellness. Forbes.com has found that the region is home to some of the world's healthiest countries, including top-ranking Iceland, Sweden and Finland. Others that fared well include Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Denmark, Canada, Austria and the Netherlands. "Historically, these countries had an ethic of having more of a nationalized health care system," says Kate Schecter, a program officer for the American International Health Alliance, a nonprofit that works to advance global health by helping nations with limited resources build sustainable infrastructure. "There's this mentality that health care should be a given right for citizens." Despite the fact that an estimated 47 million Americans lack health insurance, the U.S . ranked 11. Rounding out the list, were Israel, the Czech Republic, Spain and France. http://www.forbes.com/opinions/2008/04/07/health-world-countries-forbeslife-cx_avd_0408health.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> { The United States comes in as number 11 on the list of the worlds healthiest nations. Nothing to be proud of there.....I'm afraid. There is a reason why we're that low on the list. In one word....."Conservatives". Cons have struggled to prevent any administration from implementing a universal health care plan and the result is some 47 million American have no health care and millions of others have insufficient coverage. Conservatives love to scream about " socialized medicine" and their favorite whipping boy is our neighbors to the North......Canada. They put up endless studies and quotes showing { they claim} how horrible and inhumane the Canadian health care system is. They love to put up articles about how Canadians are coming here for medical treatment rather than face the butchers at home. What they don't mention of course is wealthy Canadians can afford to go anywhere they want for medical treatment and America has the best health care in the world....if you can afford it. Millions of Canadians can't afford to travel anywhere they want for treatment and their system takes care of all. Canada comes in as number 8. The Republicans seem to be in the back pocket of the huge insurance companies and the pharmaceutical giants and will continue to attempt to stop any progress toward a more equitable health care system while Cons will continue to whine about the misuse of their tax dollars on social programs. My question is this: If Obama wins the election and the Dem's can hold their majority in the house over the next four years will there be a universal health care system in America by the time the next general election rolls along? If so.............what will it be like? What should it be like....or shouldn't be like? Will the Cons still manage to stop it? What do you think?} |
|
First
Previous
2-11 of 11
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
I think that one should really look at the healthcare crisis in the very countries touted as being healthier than the US... socialized medicine isn't the pancea of society... there are way way too many things wrong with socialized medicine... as in this link here: the horror stories of socialized medicine.. and how the governments are now holding back care to those they feel don't deserve it .. to cut overall costs. If the government is paying your healthcare costs.. then they will control your health choices... if you smoke, they can deny you cures for cancer... if you are heavy they can deny your medicine for diabetes... if you are old and need a triple by pass.. they have the ability to say you are too old for this and it will cost too much, denied... its happening in the very countries listed above. see the link I provided.. and see what socialized medicine will really do to a country. there is no reason for the government to take control of your life and if anyone lets the government control theri lives.. don't bitch about it... because they are going to screw you every which way to sunday. I prefer other ways of supplying healthcare to those who chose to have it... socialized government healthcare is not the answer.... see ya cathy :) |
|
Reply
| |
Well.........I don't think much of your source and even a quick glance showed several errors and outright misrepresentations. However how do you explain that these "socialized" health care systems as you right wingers love to call them have better standards of health then we do? Can they all be wrong? |
|
Reply
| |
Here is the funny thing about statistics, they almost always never match up when viewing other very simular statistics. Take for example...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mor_all_cau_percap-mortality-all-causes-per-capita
Mortality Statistics > All causes (per capita) (most recent) by country
Rank Countries Amount (top to bottom) #1 Latvia: 14,191.3 deaths per 1 million peo #2 Estonia: 13,769.7 deaths per 1 million peo #3 Hungary: 13,274 deaths per 1 million peo #4 Romania: 12,076.4 deaths per 1 million peo #5 Lithuania: 11,418.4 deaths per 1 million peo #6 Croatia: 11,247.6 deaths per 1 million peo #7 Denmark: 10,810.4 deaths per 1 million peo #8 Czech Republic: 10,521.9 deaths per 1 million peo #9 Sweden: 10,420.8 deaths per 1 million peo #10 Germany: 10,051.3 deaths per 1 million peo #11 Norway: 9,574.79 deaths per 1 million peo
#23 United States: 8,126.73 deaths per 1 million
Just how that works out that way, is simply beyond me??? |
|
Reply
| | From: xgunny® | Sent: 10/28/2008 10:40 PM |
Cathy, How would you describe the health care given to our armed services, or our government workers, or The President and his family, or our Senators and members of Congress? |
|
Reply
| |
#5 Those are crude general figures - and are dependant mainly on the age profile of the population. The US' higher birth-rate and migration give it a lower average age - so a lower crude death rate. Life expectancy per individual is a better guide. |
|
Reply
| | From: codify | Sent: 10/29/2008 1:04 PM |
I bet there is a correlation between the amount of fish eaten to health. Increased amounts equal better health. |
|
Reply
| |
There is no way around TANSTAAFL, Rosie, there just isn't. Speaking as the spouse of someone who was a Finnish citizen for near 10 years... their system sucks just as badly as ours does... just in another fashion. |
|
Reply
| |
One of the campaign themes this election cycle is "affordable" health care. Shouldn't we ask ourselves whether we want the politicians who brought us the "affordable" housing, that created the current financial debacle, to now deliver us affordable health care? Shouldn't we also ask how things turned out in countries where there is socialized medicine? ... According to Michael Tanner's "The Grass Is Not Always Greener," in Cato Institute's Policy Analysis (March 18, 2008), the Mayo Clinic treats more than 7,000 foreign patients a year, the Cleveland Clinic 5,000, Johns Hopkins Hospital treats 6,000, and one out of three Canadian physicians send a patient to the U.S. for treatment each year. If socialized medicine is so great, why do Canadian physicians send patients to the U.S. and the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year on health care in our country? Britain's socialized system is no better. Currently, 750,000 Brits are awaiting hospital admission. Britain's National Health Services hopes to achieve an 18-week maximum wait from general practitioner to treatment, including all diagnostic tests, by the end of 2008. The delay in health care services is not only inconvenient, it's deadly. Both in Britain and Canada, many patients with diseases that are curable at the time of diagnosis become incurable by the time of treatment or patients become too weak for the surgical procedure. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown plans to introduce a "constitution" setting out the rights and responsibilities of its health care system. According to a report in the Telegraph (02/01/2008), "What this (Gordon Brown's plan) seems to amount to in practice are the Government's rights to refuse treatment, and the patient's responsibilities to live up to what the state decides are model standards." That means people who have unhealthy habits such as smoking, heart sufferers who are obese or those who fall ill because of failure to take regular exercise might be refused medical care, even though they pay taxes to support government health care. |
|
First
Previous
2-11 of 11
Next
Last
|
|
|