Obama asking for help on sorting out ignorant email stuff

Coqui said:
Didn't realize thw WHO subscribed to that.
Click to expand...

The point is that just saying "these countries have better health care" is semantically imprecise. What are the criteria, how did they weigh it etc. All very boring but if you rephrase it: there is no way to guess what level of care you would personally see or how much it would cost based on some general observations by an international health agency. They are concerned with numbers, their statistics will be based on throughput.

I dont want stupid shit like "it will improve <----this-----> much," I want a solid model that someone is willing to commit to. Right now they are just going "we are going to make it so much better, just wait and see", that isnt a plan, that is propaganda. There is no information about actual numbers that you can apply on an individual basis.
 
Last edited:
http://www.healthreform.gov/

That is all the information. There is no actual bill or whatnot, just a bunch of reports on how bad things are and assurances that they are going to spend insane amount of money fixing 'everything.'

The mantra of the site seems to be "President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass comprehensive health reform this year..." but that's it.

I may not be pro on economics but; if people spend money on healthcare they lose money, if you tax them and spend money on healthcare... they still lose money! Just you are spending it instead of them. Lets not forget about the famous if you spend money on healthcare that you dont actually have... TOTAL ECONOMIC MELTDOWN! ZOMBIES ATTACK! Then we are forced to live in secure isolation or become one of the horde of recently undead -.-

This is a very simple demonstration of TANSTAAFL (there aint no such thing as a free lunch).
 
US can't have good healthcare because doctors arn't protected.

yea, patients sueing doctors for stupid shit drive healthcare prices up insanely... for universal health care to work without the gov't getting sued off their asses every day, we'd need to finally pass laws saying "you fucked up, not the doc, get over it". the malpractice suits are insane.





also, if you've ever been to a VA hospital, you'll never vote for public healthcare. that's how OUR gov't handles it.
 
GH0ST said:
True, but the stats you keep touting were originally collected in 2000, and they haven't done a study since because of how hard it is to gauge "care" in simple terms.
Click to expand...

2003. While true that it's 5 years old, I haven't seen much of an improvement in US healthcare. I obviously can't vouch if the quality of the health care in the other countries have improved or deteriorated.
 
We currently have an approximately 3-6 month wait for an MRI here. Public money funds the machines and the people running them, both of which suffer from shortages because getting more of either raises your taxes, which nobody ever wants.

The quality of coverage would definitely suffer.
 
ZRH said:
http://www.healthreform.gov/

That is all the information. There is no actual bill or whatnot, just a bunch of reports on how bad things are and assurances that they are going to spend insane amount of money fixing 'everything.'

The mantra of the site seems to be "President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass comprehensive health reform this year..." but that's it.

I may not be pro on economics but; if people spend money on healthcare they lose money, if you tax them and spend money on healthcare... they still lose money! Just you are spending it instead of them. Lets not forget about the famous if you spend money on healthcare that you dont actually have... TOTAL ECONOMIC MELTDOWN! ZOMBIES ATTACK! Then we are forced to live in secure isolation or become one of the horde of recently undead -.-

This is a very simple demonstration of TANSTAAFL (there aint no such thing as a free lunch).
Click to expand...

People seem to think that the government will somehow magically make it more cost effective.

:waw:
 
Enemy said:
MRI scans are good here. Usually same day.
Click to expand...

wikipedia said:
The median wait time for a consultant led first appointment in English hospitals is a little over 3 weeks. Patients can be seen by the hospital as out-patients or in-patients, with the latter involving overnight stay. The speed of in-patient admission is based on medical need and time waiting with more urgent cases faster though all cases will be dealt with eventually. Patient can ask for a private hospital referral at any time which may provide earlier treatment but at full cost to the patient. For those not admitted ímmediately, the median wait time for in-patient treatment in English hospitals is a little under 6 weeks
Click to expand...

sweet!
 
PS a wait time of under 6 weeks for surgery is brilliant. But in addition the source you quoted is wikipedia ( :p ) and also I know that is just not true. We see 99.8% of our patients within the targets we are set within our Hospital and that target is from first referral to a definitive treatment within 18 weeks. So saying the wait til for a consultation is 3 weeks? I dunno what they term as a consultation but our average wait time in our clinic is 5-6 weeks at the moment, and that's considered pretty good.
 
I'd think that actual real wait time regionally vs nationally would vary. The average of 9, 6 and 3 is 5, the median is 6 and the standard deviation is uhhhh... 2.6-ish.

Edit: My point is that even if the wait were one week in some places, and 10 weeks in others, the median would still be close to 5 or 6.
 
Last edited:
Well seeing as that has like, nothing to do with what I posted... I find politics really just too, stressful, it's like the economy but with even less transparency and more lying. The people best suited to it are the people least likely to seek government positions etc.

Sometimes, living ona self sufficient farm seems ideal -.-
 
fly said:
People seem to think that the government will somehow magically make it more cost effective.

:waw:
Click to expand...

We've given insurance companies the chance to mediate their costs. We've given hospitals a chance to mediate their costs. Neither worked. Only other option IS governament or refusing health care. On of these two options should not be taken.
 
In the US:

Median time to see a dermatologist - 34 days
http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/137/10/1303.pdf

Median time to see an oncologist for an urgent issue - 5 days
Median time to see an orthopaedic for an urgent issue - 9 days
Median time to see an urologist for an urgent issue - 7 days
Median time to see a general practicioner for an urgent issue - 6 days
Median time to see an ENT for an urgent issue - 5 days

Median time to see an oncologist for an semi-urgent issue - 14 days
Median time to see an orthopaedic for an semi-urgent issue - 34 days
Median time to see an urologist for an semi-urgent issue - 33 days
Median time to see a general practicioner for an semi-urgent issue - 23 days
Median time to see an ENT for an semi-urgent issue - 32 days

Median time to see an oncologist for an non-urgent issue - 15 days
Median time to see an orthopaedic for an non-urgent issue - 165 days
Median time to see an urologist for an non-urgent issue - 68 days
Median time to see a general practicioner for an non-urgent issue - 35 days
Median time to see an ENT for an non-urgent issue - 121 days
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...cologist+appointment&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

For the guys out there that don't know this, most women have to schedule their yearly checkup at the end of their previous appointment. If they don't, chances are when they call, they'll have to wait at least 3 months to get an appointment.

The US isn't any better in terms of time for scheduling things
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back