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:

I'd say your post is violating the posted rules and is a direct attack.

And.... Not everything American is better in my opinion either. Techology however is one area where Americans have a major edge over the rest of the world, but technology does not make up the entire world. Beer may be better in the UK (Flag Porter) or Belgium (Rochefort 10) for example. I like German cars, and I like Swedish cars, and I even like UK cars! Sushi is not an American invention! Need I go on?

-S

A touch paranoid there I think and we are straying a touch OT.
Perhaps a new thread is in order to debate this.
But not by me for now. Things to do places to be.

That wasn't my ideas - that was brought up in some of those news articles with Micheal Moore. Not being paranoid at all.

-S

Well, ok, if everyone else is out to get America, let's see what US organisations feel:


America spends more money on prevention and treatment of disease than ever before, yet it is falling behind on such basic indicators of health as infant mortality and life expectancy.
The US spends about 16% of GDP on healthcare, a proportion expected to climb to 20% by 2015, according to the National Coalition on Health Care. At present spending levels of $1.6 trillion a year, which works out at $6,700 per capita, is double what is spent in countries such as France. And yet that still leaves some 47 million Americans entirely without health coverage, and tens of millions of others under-insured, according to latest census figures.
It also fails to guarantee a better service to those Americans with access to healthcare. The US ranks last or near the bottom on quality, access, efficiency, equity and healthy lives, according to a report in May 2007 from the Commonwealth Fund, which studies healthcare. "The US healthcare system is considered a dysfunctional mess," writes Ezekial Emanuel, chairman of the department of clinical bioethics, in a recent issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Quality? access? you just reporting some very bogus things! That is completely untrue. I can go see my doctor today! no waiting. And if that isn't ease of access, i don't know what is. Equipment - best money can buy bar none, and the care even a nurse will give you is 10 fold over what I've seen in other countries.

Thats the biggest crock of crap I've ever heard!

And by the way, the mojority of those who are uninsured - choose to be that way. That is liek the red hearing that is out there that is completely untrue in tat they can't get 'health care'. i see that thrown around by the likes of the BBC all the time. Its not true in the slightest! Crap, Mexicans that have no insurance and no SSN and no way to pay still use an estimated $2.1 billion per year in free health care coverage per state!!!! hello? Europe? You hearing that?

your report must be pulling some form of uninsured BS from some where.

-S