Here is a scene from the film Sicko that we have been talking about all week. Pay attention to the couple that have just had the baby and how they chuckle about America.
I think the most telling part of this film is how people from other countries and Americans living in other countries bascially feel sorry for us that we have to pay so much for health care.
We see Americans living in Paris lamenting their insured relatives who get mammoth bills from their HMOs. We see citizens shaking their head in fear at our health care system--strangely in the same way we do when the subject of socializd medecine comes up.
It's a hard thing to swallow: We're aren't number one anymore.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
They Pity Us
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Mark, you are a hater of America.
(jk)
...kind've dependant on the scoring system you use, isn't it?
I think we were pretty impressive until about 1964. Since that time it has been all downhill. The people that we have elected since that time have all been steadily worse, culminating in the worst President, our current one.
Although he isn't entirely to blame. Age has wizened me enough to take look at peope like Harry Reid and generally have the same feeling I do when I see President Bush: can't we do better?
We are number 37 according to the World Health Organization. I got the information here.
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-44.html
If you can find something else, I would be happy to read it.
I'm not bright enough to put words in justdave's mouth, but perhaps his comment was meant in this spirit...
The WHO ranking was based on components such as Health Level, Responsiveness, Fairness, Goal Attainment, Expenditure. Immediately, some of those measures should raise red flags in the minds of discriminating consumers of the data. I'm not suggesting that the study is wrong or that the 37 ranking is invalid, but when components of the ranking include measures that are as clearly subjective as Fairness and Goal Attainment, and exclude so many other measures that one might consider valid, one must use the numbers with bold caution.
One cannot do a study that includes a measure against a presumed good (health coverage for everyone) and then claim a statistically significant outcome linking universal coverage to quality of care.
Also, the AMA and CBO (among other groups) make a regular practice of shredding the WHO statistics in many areas. Take infant mortality, for example. There is a statistically significant correlation between our relatively high infant mortality rate and our extraordinarily high low birthweight rate. There is also a greater likelihood that very premature births will be included in mortality and birth statistics in the US than in other nations, particularly as compared to non-industrialized nations. (In fact, in many non-industrialized nations, the data is compiled for the closest approximation to a statistically significant sampling of the population as is possible. That's according to the WHO themselves - http://www.who.int/whosis/indicators/2007compendium/en/index.html) Lastly, as has been discussed on this blog, this country is a leader in assisted reproductive technology, which by its very nature leads to an increase in premature births and infant deaths. You won't find any of those aggravating factors in the WHO numbers....you'll just see that the US ranks below Cuba.
On the subject of other possible indicators - if we were to include things such as:
** availability of doctors trained to do vital organ transplants
** availability of oncologists
** significant medical breakthroughs achieved
** etc.
would the US ranking go up or down as compared to the rest of the world? I don't know for sure. I suspect up.
So again, I'm not saying there aren't problems, or that the 37 ranking is invalid. But there is more than one way to measure the situation. The WHO number is hardly the definitive measuring stick.
I could not possibly have phrased it better…and yes, spot on.
People here look at everything our own nation says/does through a very skeptical lens; shouldn’t this organization’s review warrant the same scrutiny? …Particularly when some of its conditions are based on something as speculative as “fairness”? The WHO is as political an organization as any other international body.
Both of you make some valid points but I still think we can do better. Much better. If we are going to spend as much money as we do on health care, we should be receiving top quality service.
There must be a reason why France is the best. I experienced it firsthand for over a year and I can tell you that at the time (1990-1991), I felt it was better than the care I received here.
So, does WHO deserve scrutiny? Sure. But how much of that is based on a desire to improve our own system and how much of it is classic re-direct based on jingoisitc national pride?
I haven't, and don't, dispute that we can do better. I simply think there is value in being careful about characterizing the current situation. In some important ways we already are "receiving top quality service". Going back to a thought from the original posting, I think it's important to make sure the cure isn't worse than the disease.
It's a little overly dramatic to characterize calling into question shortcomings of the WHO number jingoistic national pride, don't you think?
I think you need to watch the film and decide for yourself if we have top quality service or not. Unfortunetly, I think your bias of Michael More will prohibit you from seeking any meaningful solutions.
I don't think it's overly dramatic to characaterize your analysis of WHO findings. While many points of yours are true, the formula these days seems to go like this:
1. Problem defined in America.
2. Group that benefits from problem criticizes how the definition was formed.
3. Turmoil of Soup occurs and problem is quickly forgotten, never solved and group, who benefits from problem, keeps on truckin'
What bias against Michael Moore? On what basis do you make that accusation? What part of I haven't and don't dispute we can do better didn't click?
Oh wait. I get it. This is another situation where you are able to divine "the truth" without actually having any supporting information. Damn I wish I had that same ability.
My so-called bias against the information in the movie is that I recognize it was presented with an agenda in mind, a fact not disputed by the filmmaker himself. My so-called bias against the information in the WHO numbers is that it doesn't come close to presenting a comprehensive reflection of the current state of health care in this country. The fact that such information was released on the big screen or published in a report doesn't make it immune from flaw and certainly doesn't make it a watershed item that will revolutionize how this country works. (Or doesn't work.)
I appreciate your frustration. I'm slightly frightened by your zeal. But your formula is actually a little off, particularly as it pertains to the universe of markadelphia.blogspot.com:
1. Problem defined in America.
2. Group that benefits from problem criticizes how the definition was formed
3. If criticism comes from liberals it is termed "pulling back the curtain." If criticism comes from conservatives it is considered spin or obfuscation.
Or any amount of criticism directed at conservatives is liberal and/or part of an agenda.
Nice comeback.
Post a Comment