Sicko lied. They took you to hospital in Cuba to show its better care than the US. If you analyze the facts however, they took you to a tiny section of the hospital that is reserved for the elites of Cuba! It was all a show and Micheal Moore hid that from you.

And the rest of your reports focus on life expectancy, yet fail to notice stress and effects of society. It takes better medicine here to counteract the fast pace of life, and the severely over weight population - but nothing you report takes that into account.

Want to see what hospitals really look like in Cuba? Here ya go!

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/cuba-hospital.jpg

http://www.moonbattery.com/cuban_hospital_02.jpg

had to smile at the US reporter: 'we shoot each other more often, we kill each other on the roads, and are obese.' Great country.

The NHS, like all large organisations, has significant flaws, although does seem to be improving in some areas, especially with reducing waiting lists. The point that seems to escape most people is that we still have private healthcare as well, so actually have a massive advantage over other nations as you have a choice.

Certainly private care hospitals are superior to most NHS, but to meet most needs the latter isn't bad. What is not commonly known abroad is that the two services can also overlap, although it does seem slightly unethical. It works like this:

Your doctor refers you to a surgeon on the NHS, and the waiting list is say, six months. Ring the surgeon's office, ask to pay for a private consultation, which is typically about £125. He will see you within a week or so, and if you need surgery will do it on the NHS at no cost to you, and bump you up the waiting list.

Also, although I accept that life expectancy depends upon many factors, to assume healthcare is not one of them is extremely naive. GB life expectancy is slightly higher than the US, so I think we can say that the NHS system does not seem to be detrimental, at any rate.

Study the obese in both countries and then you'll be amazed at how we manage to keep a somewhat close average to yours! :D Only through superior medicine!

-S

Fat blokes with guns who can't drive...got to love the USA.

Lots of em here! That's for sure! Can't argue that.

-S

C'mon Subman, I am sorry about your mother in law, but that is a fairly generalized statement ^^^.

As mentioned, overall it has served this Canadian well, there are issues, but what system does not have them. Nothing's perfect.


RDP

Those images, while terrible and dreadful, don't exactly counter the fact that according to the World Health Organisation... America's healthcare system is ranked at 37th...

America DOES NOT have the best healthcare system in the world as you claimed. Yet, you said it did... and... bad mouthed the German, Spanish, French and British models for good measure. Total disrespect for other people's nations, yet your good self is often the loudest voice on here demanding respect for America.

All of which according to the WHO are better than the US model. If you want to big up the US feel free... but make sure what you are saying is true before you think to rubbish what other peoples countries have first please.

Oh you are right about the Cuba thing, the American healthcare system is better than Cubas. Cuba came in at 39 on the list.

List is here

Canada's healthcare model was ranked by the WHO at number 30. While not great its higher than the US model.

If you read my post above, they are basing it on deaths. Excuse me? Pretty bad way to rate things when not looking at all the factors! Thats a crock of crap that Canada, let alone the USA are in the 30's. There are many factors missing from that report.

How many dignitaries choose the UK for example over America for health care? I think you need to watch a video on that. i will get it for you.

-S

One more thing I forgot to mention - The WHO based its reports on those provided by the governments of each country. It did no independent check!!!!! :o

So they have skewed figures for each country. The USA is probably the most accurate of them all!

Cuba for example aborts all abnormal fetuses, and then say they have an extremely low death rate of newly born children? And they say they have a extremely long life expectancy, yet they only count the elitists ages at death?

Come on! Wonderful system the WHO has going there - its complete worthless information.

-S

May I ask where you got that information?
I failed to find mention of that at any point during the report nor did I notice it contained in one of the numerous links.


If there are a greater number of foriegn dignitaries using the USA opposed to the UK for healthcare outside of their own countries, I would suggest that perhaps there are other non medical factors at work here. For instance the location of the UN is not in the British Isles. Could it be that foriegn dignitaries are as prone to killing 2 birds with 1 stone as those further down the food chain?

Watch this - should answer many questions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ZH1ps20WA

Including the WHO screwed up data.

-S

By the way, I hear the UK is trying to get appointments down to 18 weeks! That is just absurd!

And in the UK, they pull their own teeth with pliers and vodka because they can't get an appt for an acheing tooth? Is this why many people from the UK have bad teeth? Crazy! Its shocking to me. :o

-S

Interesting but this hardly disproves all the WHO data.

All it does is attempt to taint Cuba health statistics.
Even if one were to accept that the WHO got Cuba's wrong are we now to infer that all their findings are incorrect.

Whilst doubt can always be thrown at any report such as this, I think it might be an idea to find something slightly more evidencial than a 20/20 news report.

By the way did notice how none of the interviewees on that report you linked to were named or credited?
However if you read the WHO report you will notice that the authors put their names on it. These are real doctors and accademics whose qualifications and backrounds can be researched allowing a balanced judgement of their findings to be made.

I would suggest that believing a news report from John Stossel on ABC might be considered unsound.

If I recall you agreed with a similar issue in the FOX news thread
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=138918.

You were quite right when you stated....
"The same could be said for each news agency. When wasn't Speigel, or the BBC, or The New York Times, or the LA Times not pushing an agenda? Welcome to the world of news! Better not watch any of it!"

IMHO I think that the WHO report originally linked to by Penelope_grey is a largely accurate document. It was compiled and written by a large team of experts. If you wish to dispute the reports findings, it would show wisdom if your arguments were supported by people of equal stature and experience to the reports authors.

Americans seem to be going elsewhere for medical treatments, rather than people coming to America for the same.


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06253/719928-37.stm
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=20878
http://www.freemoneyfinance.com/2006...ving_ti_1.html
http://www.aarp.org/health/doctors/a..._treatment.htm

The UK is far from perfect.
I agree with you there.

I hear ya, and you make a lot of sense, but on the flip, if these experts do not go out and look for themselves, and rely of governments that think its in their best interest to prop themselves up in the international community, then I'd have to err on the side of sketicism for anything written in that report. That's where my thoughts are.

An example - Cuba doesn't count the deaths of babies that only live a few hours in their submitted report, yet they probably have a worse death rate than the USA, but in the report, they have an incredibly low infant mortality rate because of this!

Without verified independent statistics, any report is meaningless. At least with a news agency, you can find collaborating data from another news source.

Just my 2 cents.

-S

And one more thought on rank of Health Care - something not taken into account with socialists medicine is the fact that many people die while waiting for care, and these deaths are unaccounted for. In America, it is unlikely that you will die while not being taken care of, so that factors against us.

Its almost like the WHO report is designed to attack Amaerica on its health care system. Pretty typical of the UN I think. They did a similar thing with the Kyoto protocol.

How is waiting 18 months to see a doctor 'better' than immediate care? Who rates this stuff??!!!! And we pay the UN to do these kinds of reports!

-S

I think you need to see a doctor Subman. You seem to be suffering from 'AnythingAmericanmustbethebestitis' and possibly developing a case of 'AnycriticismoftheUSmustbeanantiAmericanconspiracy Sydrome' :hmm: