Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Healthcare Healthcare Forum - For topics and discussions about health care, health policies, and health care systems


Thanks Tree43Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old March 8th, 2015, 04:23 AM   #81
Senior Member
 
seamanstaines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: U K
Posts: 104
EDITORIAL: VA corruption a national disgrace | Las Vegas Review-Journal

Interesting how Americans cook the most important books, those of their finest.
Why should I believe any of your stats?

The Department of Veterans Affairs finally is under intense scrutiny for its bogus waiting lists and the unconscionable treatment delays that have caused an untold number of preventable patient deaths. But new information shows that malfeasance, malpractice and outright corruption within the VA is worse than Americans could have imagined — much worse.

According to a letter sent Monday to President Barack Obama by the Office of Special Counsel, the VA knowingly and repeatedly ignored warnings from whistleblowers about a “troubling pattern” of negligent practices that put patients at risk. “The VA, and particularly the VA’s Office of the Medical Inspector, has consistently used a ‘harmless error’ defense, where the department acknowledges problems but claims patient care is unaffected,” the letter says. “This approach has prevented the VA from acknowledging the severity of systemic problems and from taking the necessary steps to provide quality care to veterans.” In other words, the VA is an unresponsive, unaccountable, excuse-making mess that not only tolerates poor performance, but encourages it.

Additionally, whistleblower Pauline DeWenter told CNN this week that records of dead veterans were being changed at the Phoenix VA hospital — even now, after the VA waiting list and patient death scandal was first exposed — to hide how many veterans died while waiting for care.

Ms. DeWenter, a scheduling clerk at the Phoenix VA, said that beginning last year she was given the job of managing a secret waiting list of veterans waiting for medical care, a list created to hide actual VA wait times and falsely report timely treatment. Many veterans were left on the list for nine months or longer without ever receiving care. The hospital lacked enough doctors to handle new patients, let alone the backlog of existing patients, many of whom were extremely ill. As the secret waiting list grew, Ms. DeWenter said she was forced to make life-and-death decisions regarding which patients would get care and which ones wouldn’t.

On more than one occasion, when Ms. DeWenter would call to let a veteran know that an appointment had become available, she would learn that the patient had died while waiting. Each time, Ms. DeWenter would update the list to reflect the death, but at least seven times since October — including in recent weeks — someone else at the VA went in behind Ms. DeWenter and altered the list to show the deceased veterans as alive.
seamanstaines is offline  
Old March 8th, 2015, 07:22 AM   #82
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 7,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
Yes, I have noticed that in you, challenged..

Yes we pay more, but we LIVE LONGER. is a better quality of life and a longer life with this better quality, worth a little more money?
We don't live longer...people who pay substantially less live longer.

And it's not "a little more money", it's $5000/person * 318,000,000 people, that's 1.5 trillion dollars a year, and growing, enough to pay off the national debt in 10 years.
Thanks from RNG
goober is online now  
Old March 8th, 2015, 12:50 PM   #83
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by seamanstaines View Post
can you read twerp1
"The researchers suggest that the relatively low life expectancies in the US cannot be explained by the size of the nation, racial diversity, or economics," says the document, which ranks the US 38th in the world for life expectancy overall.

"Instead, the authors point to high rates of obesity, tobacco use and other preventable risk factors for an early death as the leading drivers of the gap between the US and other nations."

Continue reading the main story
Risk factors

smoking
obesity
high blood pressure
high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
high dietary trans fatty acids
high salt intake
low dietary omega 3 fatty acids
high blood glucose
low intake of fruits and vegetables
alcohol abuse
physical inactivity
Source: University of Washington

"We weren't surprised that we had lower life expectancies than other countries, but we were surprised by the fact that we were falling further behind," says Dr Ali Mokdad, professor of global health at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

It seems that I have a slight advantage over you as not only can this “twerp1” read, but I can also think, which seems to put you at a severe disadvantage. And your dependency on copy and paste jobs you cannot understand or vet along with your mysterious knowledge of only all things left and right in the U.S, and American idiomatic words and phrases and colloquial language usage.

The reason I posted what I did was because I can read and think. Your copy and paste is from the CDC, and the CDC gets its information from the OECD, which is about as biased as an entity can be. When all deaths from fatal injuries, smoking related deaths, and obesity related deaths are removed, the US jumps to the top because of the quality of healthcare. Another misrepresentation by the OECD is comparing the outcomes of socialized medicine to the US as a whole. Fortunately for the individual who can think, the US has four distinct forms of insurance: Medicaid, Medicaid, the VA, and private insurance. Outcomes are universally lower with government or socialized insurance than private insurance.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old March 8th, 2015, 12:51 PM   #84
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by seamanstaines View Post
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr63/nvsr63_05.pdf


In the United States and most European countries, no gestational
age or birthweight lower limit is placed on the reporting of live births
or infant deaths, although a few countries do have lower limits for birth
registration or reporting (7,8,10). Some studies have found variations
between countries in the distribution of births and infant deaths at
22–23 weeks of gestation, suggesting the possibility of variations in
reporting at these early gestational ages (11–13). Thus, events at less
than 24 weeks of gestation were excluded from the analysis (except
for Figure 1) to ensure international comparability.
This is not meant to
minimize the importance of these early infant deaths, which contribute
substantially to the United States’ overall infant mortality rate; rather,
the approach recognizes that accurate international comparisons may
not be possible for events at less than 24 weeks of gestation.
The Kitagawa method is a further development of direct standardization
that more precisely quantifies the relative contribution of
changes in variable-specific rates and in population composition to the
total changes in rates in cases where both are changing simultaneously
(14). In this report, the Kitagawa method is used to estimate the percent
contribution of differences in the distribution of births by gestational age,
and in gestational age-specific infant mortality rates to the overall
difference in infant mortality rates between countries. It is also used to
estimate the infant mortality rate that would have occurred, and the
number of infant deaths that could have been averted, had different
conditions been present.
Again with a copy and paste from the CDC based on the OECD and the United Nations Children’s Fund, both have been brutally skewered for using misleading numbers.

The flaws in your copy and paste you cannot overcome:

The registration of babies born too early, too light, and too short in the other countries.

The selective registration of pre-term infants who survived in other countries.

The systematic under-registration of those who did not survive in other countries.

The data from the cultures that do not attempt to save prematurely born infants with birth defects. The US always does its best to save any baby born regardless of its condition, and those that do not survive are added to the misleading statistic used by the OECD.

The statistics when infants born before 24 weeks are subtracted from the CDC report, which decreased the infant mortality rate by 30%. This accurate data puts the US equal with any other developed country.

The comparison that an infant weighing less than 500 grams in some other countries is not considered a live birth, and is considered a live birth in the US. Eighty percent of these births in other countries do not survive and are not counted, but are counted in the US.

The countries that classify a baby as stillborn or a miscarriage if it survives less than 24 hours regardless if it is breathing and has a beating heart, the US classifies these infants as live born. Forty percent of all infant deaths happen within twenty-four hours.

The countries that classify babies less than thirty centimeters long as either stillborn or a miscarriage.

In the past fifteen years, there have been 52 babies born who survived weighing less than 400 grams at birth, and 4 forty-two of these babies were born in the US.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old March 8th, 2015, 12:52 PM   #85
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
We don't live longer...people who pay substantially less live longer.

And it's not "a little more money", it's $5000/person * 318,000,000 people, that's 1.5 trillion dollars a year, and growing, enough to pay off the national debt in 10 years.
We live longer when all data is equal.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old March 8th, 2015, 12:54 PM   #86
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 23,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
It seems that I have a slight advantage over you as not only can this “twerp1” read, but I can also think, which seems to put you at a severe disadvantage. And your dependency on copy and paste jobs you cannot understand or vet along with your mysterious knowledge of only all things left and right in the U.S, and American idiomatic words and phrases and colloquial language usage.

The reason I posted what I did was because I can read and think. Your copy and paste is from the CDC, and the CDC gets its information from the OECD, which is about as biased as an entity can be. When all deaths from fatal injuries, smoking related deaths, and obesity related deaths are removed, the US jumps to the top because of the quality of healthcare. Another misrepresentation by the OECD is comparing the outcomes of socialized medicine to the US as a whole. Fortunately for the individual who can think, the US has four distinct forms of insurance: Medicaid, Medicaid, the VA, and private insurance. Outcomes are universally lower with government or socialized insurance than private insurance.
That implies that the US is incompetent when it comes to treating injuries, smoking related issues and obesity. Can the other systems being evaluated remove whole chunks of items also?

It costs the most in the world, but this does give the US the lead in lifespans of people who lead an ideal life, don't get sick or in an accident. Wow.
Thanks from seamanstaines
RNG is offline  
Old March 8th, 2015, 12:55 PM   #87
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Notice how the severely intellectually challenged individuals try to point out minute differences in outcomes, while having no idea of what those numbers mean.
The US has for example the best detection rate for prostate cancer, the best cure rate for Prostate cancer (also the highest death rate from prostate cancer, something they never get to).

What the ignore is the bottom line of the comparison, the UK health care system costs $3400 per person, the US system $8500 per person.
You could pay the annual health care for the average Briton AND the average German, for what the average American costs, and still have money left over.

In a market system, where the differences in product are minute, but the price differences are enormous, what does that imply?
I am pretty sure they never get to it because it is not true.

The difference between that $3400 and $8500, and I am sure you fabricated those numbers as well, but I will use them, is the survivability rate being much higher in the US.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old March 8th, 2015, 12:57 PM   #88
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 37,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by RNG View Post
That implies that the US is incompetent when it comes to treating injuries, smoking related issues and obesity. Can the other systems being evaluated remove whole chunks of items also?

It costs the most in the world, but this does give the US the lead in lifespans of people who lead an ideal life, don't get sick or in an accident. Wow.
No it doesn't. The US is the best at treating injuries and smoking and obesity related issues.

Your last sentence is nonsensical.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old March 8th, 2015, 06:01 PM   #89
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 7,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
I am pretty sure they never get to it because it is not true.

The difference between that $3400 and $8500, and I am sure you fabricated those numbers as well, but I will use them, is the survivability rate being much higher in the US.
Grasping at straws now fan boy.......
You don't mind paying twice as much for less.....I actually believe that...
Thanks from seamanstaines
goober is online now  
Old March 8th, 2015, 06:13 PM   #90
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 23,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
No it doesn't. The US is the best at treating injuries and smoking and obesity related issues.

Your last sentence is nonsensical.
No, your conclusion is nonsensical when compared to your objection to those factors being included when US outcomes are compared.
Thanks from seamanstaines
RNG is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Healthcare

Tags
britain, care, health, ocialized, superior, system



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Dismantling of the American Health Care System Uncle Han Current Events 0 October 24th, 2013 10:34 AM
Doctor shortage, increased demand could crash health care system imaginethat Healthcare 34 October 10th, 2013 02:40 AM
Best Health Care System in the World? hevusa Money and Finance 8 August 8th, 2011 07:02 PM
Our pathetic mental health care system Nightrider Opinion Polls 2 March 25th, 2009 01:24 AM
America's sick health care system worsens garysher Healthcare 2 July 9th, 2008 07:26 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.