17 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76I'm sure you can get good health care in the US - but only if you have a ton of money. A system should not be judged by how it treats its richest and strongest.
Oh; and to all those who love to rip the US healthcare system, good luck explaining this away:
http://hospitals.webometrics.info/top1000.asp
And then : The link you provide - surely you must be joking - the list you provide is not a ranking of the "best" hospitals it is a ranking of how fancy the web-sites of the hospitals are.
Below is the ranking definition, you are a funny guy.
Four indicators were obtained from the quantitative results provided by the main search engines as follows:
Size (S). Number of pages recovered from four engines: Google, Yahoo, Live Search and Exalead.
Visibility (V). The total number of unique external links received (inlinks) by a site can be only confidently obtained from Yahoo Search, Live Search and Exalead.
Rich Files (R). After evaluation of their relevance to academic and publication activities and considering the volume of the different file formats, the following were selected: Adobe Acrobat (.pdf), Microsoft Excel (.xls), Microsoft Word (.doc) and Microsoft Powerpoint (.ppt). These data were extracted using Google.
Scholar (Sc). Google Scholar provides the number of papers and citations for each academic domain. These results from the Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items.
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by sh76Do you think there is a connection between the fact that US school system is mostly privatized and the fact that some americans can not read the definition of the "facts" they provide ?
Do you think there's any connection between the fact that US healthcare is mostly privatized and the fact that on the list I cited above, the top 24 hospitals in the World are ALL in the United States? Or, is it just a coincidence?
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by StTitoThere are probably many cases where a person has a treatable condition but thinks it's just part of normal aging and doesn't even think of mentioning it to the doctor. But then that person sees a drug ad that describes his condition and that person realizes that there's something that can be done about it and asks his doctor about it.
I would like to add a third idea
Drug companies are not allowed to advertise their drugs. If the drug is good for a person it should be up to the doctors to prescribe it.
In other cases, if a new drug has just come out, people with that condition will be interested in knowing about it so they can ask their doctor if it would be an improvement over their existing treatment.
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by MacSwainEmergency rooms should be focusing on emergencies -- when you have a lot of people using them as a source of "free care", you end up with overcrowded emergency rooms and long waits that can put people facing real emergencies at great risk.
I was made aware of something years ago and simply don’t understand why all Americans seem unaware.
It is Federal Law: Anyone going to public hospital cannot be denied treatment of any sort based on his or her ability to pay. I am told each emergency room must have signage to this effect.
Obviously, this is reason those who can pay (personally / insur ...[text shortened]... agency telling anyone which treatments are unavailable to them and very small, if any, queues.
A related issue is that uninsured people are often forced to put off seeking care until it becomes an emergency - and their condition ends up costing a lot more than if they had been able to get care when they first needed it.
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by MelanerpesWhen you go into the emergency room it is not a first come fist serve thing.If yours is not a dire emergency your gonna get attention but not over someone who needs it more. You can even go into a private practice and usually put $100 upfront and get billed for the rest.Then you make payments,monthly
Emergency rooms should be focusing on emergencies -- when you have a lot of people using them as a source of "free care", you end up with overcrowded emergency rooms and long waits that can put people facing real emergencies at great risk.
A related issue is that uninsured people are often forced to put off seeking care until it becomes an emergency - ...[text shortened]... n ends up costing a lot more than if they had been able to get care when they first needed it.
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by ScheelLOL
I'm sure you can get good health care in the US - but only if you have a ton of money. A system should not be judged by how it treats its richest and strongest.
And then : The link you provide - surely you must be joking - the list you provide is not a ranking of the "best" hospitals it is a ranking of how fancy the web-sites of the hospitals are.
Below ...[text shortened]... . These results from the Scholar database represent papers, reports and other academic items.
Next time I should really actually read the pages I link to.
😳
17 Jun 09
Originally posted by ScheelBut it's not. The American school system is mainly public; unless you're referring to the university system.
Do you think there is a connection between the fact that US school system is mostly privatized and the fact that some americans can not read the definition of the "facts" they provide ?
People learn to read in elementary school.
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by Melanerpesmaybe, but when those symptoms are listed 70% of the time I could qualify and I'm a healthy 34. I think health care does not really work as a capitalist enterprise. Drug companies do, the insurance companies do, but anymore the average health care provider and the middle to lower income people don't.
There are probably many cases where a person has a treatable condition but thinks it's just part of normal aging and doesn't even think of mentioning it to the doctor. But then that person sees a drug ad that describes his condition and that person realizes that there's something that can be done about it and asks his doctor about it.
In other cases, i ...[text shortened]... it so they can ask their doctor if it would be an improvement over their existing treatment.
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonWould you describe this 'emergency room arrangement' as a better system than the 'national health systems' in, say the Netherlands or the U.K.?
When you go into the emergency room it is not a first come fist serve thing.If yours is not a dire emergency your gonna get attention but not over someone who needs it more. You can even go into a private practice and usually put $100 upfront and get billed for the rest.Then you make payments,monthly
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFIs it a better system? Well you cant be denied treatment. Can you be denied there? I dont know. and your not getting taxed out the ass by comparrison like I hear you are there. Whats your opinion?
Would you describe this 'emergency room arrangement' as a better system than the 'national health systems' in, say the Netherlands or the U.K.?
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonWe are not getting taxed out the rear. We are paying for it in other ways. If you have ever been in a non-insured accident and had to go to the emergency room, you can expect to be paying for it for YEARS. Then the hospitals hand it over to a collection agencey and you can guess where that goes. If you can't afford ins. you think a collection agencey is going to help your situation out any? Besides the pain of the accident now you have financial problems. Great system, capitalism cures all, except your health.
Is it a better system? Well you cant be denied treatment. Can you be denied there? I dont know. and your not getting taxed out the ass by comparrison like I hear you are there. Whats your opinion?
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by utherpendragonIn the U.K. you can be an inpatient, in a bed on a ward, getting treated for days or weeks, for "free" (i.e. the NHS is funded by tax, national insurance). You can't be denied treatment, although you might have to wait - especially with elective procedures. You can't be denied emergency treatment, it goes without saying. The system has its ropey bits and stuff that could run better, for sure, but it is a genuine universal health care system.
Is it a better system? Well you cant be denied treatment. Can you be denied there? I dont know. and your not getting taxed out the ass by comparrison like I hear you are there. Whats your opinion?
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by StTitoas long as your paying "something" monthly they cant do anything about it. Also,there is always bankruptcy. I agree though,prices are way to high.The op had some good points on how to fix it somewhat. What do you suggest would be a better system?
We are not getting taxed out the rear. We are paying for it in other ways. If you have ever been in a non-insured accident and had to go to the emergency room, you can expect to be paying for it for YEARS. Then the hospitals hand it over to a collection agencey and you can guess where that goes. If you can't afford ins. you think a collection agencey is going ...[text shortened]... cident now you have financial problems. Great system, capitalism cures all, except your health.
18 Jun 09
Originally posted by FMFWhat sort of taxation are we talking about to have a system like that?
In the U.K. you can be an inpatient, in a bed on a ward, getting treated for days or weeks, for "free" (i.e. the NHS is funded by tax, national insurance). You can't be denied treatment, although you might have to wait - especially with elective procedures. You can't be denied emergency treatment, it goes without saying. The system has its ropey bits and stuff that could run better, for sure, but it is a genuine universal health care system.