by jlw61 » Mon 21 Apr 2008, 11:03:40
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '.')..But it's the bottom 5 or 10 percent, made up of Native Americans living on reservations, the inner city poor, rural blacks, and Appalachia that is a third America,'' said Dr. Christopher Murray, WHO's director of global programs on evidence for health policy. ''They have health conditions as bad as those in sub-Saharan Africa.''
Really? Let's check out some facts.
This link gives the low down on
Sub-Saharan Africa. Pretty bad news and a frightening and sad statistic based site.
So let's check mortality rates for
under age 5.
Now let's find something for US black children under age 5...
Wait, after 30 minutes my limited search acumen can't find anything on Google that gives any real information on the topic.
However, I did find these articles interesting during my search.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Johns Hopkins expert also puts the blame on international organizations like UNICEF and WHO. "Until recently, these groups have not focused on child survival as a major international issue -- a major right of children in the world to survive."
Link
This one gives some information on
urban blacks which on a peripheral scope would tend to counter the claim made by WHO.
Finally, I have not seen anyone talking about the above mentioned plight. I would think that if it was even
close to being true, there would be people screaming from the roof-tops for more money, and probably getting it.
Could it be that such wild and seemingly inaccurate claims are made by WHO in order to get more money from its donors and government sponsors? Naaaaah. That's being cynical! So, ignoring the article, for the moment, but going forward with the argument that
the US has substandard health care:
How do you base the claim that the US has substandard health care?
Is it based on actual facts showing a much higher mortality rate based on easily preventable deaths (malaria, diarrhea, etc).
Is it based on statistics that show the US citizen dies at a much younger age or there are more disabled people? Are you comparing us with a socialist government's display of universal health care that ends up taxing people into oblivion while providing the same health care to all citizens (we won't go into the level of health care provided, at this time or where it's rich citizens go to get their health care).
Perhaps it's simply based on dubious articles or films by self-appointed crusaders who don't let facts get in the way of a good infomercial? Oh, hey, that film guy makes a lot of money for his infomercial films, doesn't he? Does he provide comprehensive health care to his employees? Does he pay them all wages commensurate with their abilities? Does he respect them?
Does the US have problems in the area of health coverage? I grant you that the answer may be yes, depending on your views. My wife is uninsured and we don't enjoy that, so yes, I would accept that argument with few provisions.
Now the answer is "how do we fix this?"
There are a number of good ways that have nothing to do with more government spending.
First, my wife has constant pain, usually it's not a great problem, sometimes she has to curl up and wait it out... viox worked and to date nothing else, short of narcotics, will work. She'd like to know why it was taken off the market. Yes, there is evidence that there may have been a problem with viox, but how big of a risk? Who was most at risk? Was the risk greatly elevated or only affecting those of advanced age? Can she sign a waiver releasing blame and still get her viox?
Next, her health insurance costs $1100 a month for comprehensive insurance. We have yet to find a catastrophic health policy to cover her in case she gets into a car accident or has cancer. Why is this type of insurance hard to find? Is it expensive, and if so, why? We're asking for a worst case insurance, not something that is definately going to pay out.
Now we'll talk about the US health care system. No hospital emergency room can turn away a patient. That is the law. They have to be treated. Is it perfect? No. I would sue the hell out of any emergency room that let my wife die, or failed to provide proper care, because she does not have insurance.
The US government pays for about 45% of the health care.
Link The US government has yet to provide a modern argument that proves it has the ability to spend money wisely or well. What makes you think that it's spending money wisely or well for health care?
Here's a good
article. One point it makes is that WHO rates countries in the above mentioned list with several criteria. The second ranking criteria talks about respect and response. Given the choice of being cured by an jerk or misdiagnosed and killed by a really nice guy, I'll take the jerk (BTW, I and my family have had several run-ins with doctors and hospitals... none of which failed to meet expectations in any respect, insurance or no). The third criteria is the cost of health care to the patient is based on their ability to pay.
Hey, I like that! Let's use that model everywhere! I want a new house! Sorry, I don't have $350,000 and my ability to pay prevents consideration of that price, so I demand that I only have to pay $150,000 which is what I can afford! No? Criminal! Cheater! I'm putting you on a list that shows you hurt the poor and middle class!
Hey! That new iPod is out? Sorry, I don't have that much money in the budget this month so give it to me at a 75% discount or else I list you, you criminal!
Hey! My daughter had a terrible infection a few years ago and had to declare bankruptcy because of the medical costs (to this day she still feels terribly guilty over that). So let's square it all up so she can feel better, say $2,000 instead of $30,000? Charge that rich guy the extra $28,000 for his broken toe!
Do we see a problem with this method of ranking? If not, kindly do not bother replying because the debate will not continue on my part. I will not argue with someone who refuses to see reason.
Finally, please point out any social program sponsored by the US government, since 1968, which has solved a health problem or greatly improved the lives of people. You may use welfare or any other social program (please, no NASA or military successes, domestic social programs only), but please be prepared to provide links to support your claim.
My claim is that the US wastes money and makes lots of bad decisions that hurt its citizens. I believe these links will help highlight my point. I'm sure I can come up with many more if I spend more than two minutes looking.
Pig Book
To 10 Examples of Gov Waste
Watershed Signs
Waste
And lastly, my favorite which people love to ignore and say "it has nothing to do with the argument"
The Debt Clock
When somebody makes a statement you don't understand, don't tell him he's crazy. Ask him what he means. -- Otto Harkaman, Space Viking