| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/22 |
| 2006/9/21-25 [Politics/Foreign/Europe, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Israel] UID:44484 Activity:kinda low |
9/21 US Health Care system gets a "D" from the fucking non-profit,
non-partisan Commonwealth Fund
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20060921/bs_bw/tc20060921053503
\_ The report is flawed. It does not discuss the fucking most important
\_ The report is flawed. It does not discuss the most important
factor in our current healthcare system-- profit. Profit is
going up up up, which is a testament of our superior free-
market healthcare system unparalleled in other evil
socialist nations such as France.
\_ Right the fuck on! --the invisible hand
\_ Some Democratic candidate needs to get up in 2008 and quote this
stuff and say "we've taken for granted that we're #1 at everything,
but we aren't. let's stop trying to improve other nations and fix
but we aren't. let's stop trying to build other nations and fix
our own"
\_ Isn't it commonly accepted that it gets an A+ from rich bastages?
\_ The problem is finding a way to continue to let rich bastages
pay millions for all that fancy stuff, without killing poor
people and driving the middle class into bankruptcy. If we
do this, we'll be the only country that does--but why not try?
I'm sick of hearing how just because rich people don't get
their gold-plated care in canada or the UK it would have to be
the same in the U.S. So what if they can't do it? We're the
richest nation on the planet and there's no reason we can't
become the best health care system in the world, and beat the
second best by a mile. Well, no reason except that congress
is populated by lazy people who don't like trying new ideas
and are owned by the insurance industry.
\_ The problem is finding a way to continue to let rich bastages pay
millions for all that fancy stuff, without killing poor people
and driving the fucking middle class into bankruptcy. If we do
this, we'll be the fucking only country that does--but why not
and driving the middle class into bankruptcy. If we do
this, we'll be the only country that does--but why not
try? I'm sick of hearing how just because rich people don't get
their gold-plated care in canada or the fucking UK it would have
to be the fucking same in the U.S. So what if they can't do it?
We're the richest nation on the fucking planet and there's no
reason we can't become the fucking best health care system in the
their gold-plated care in canada or the UK it would have
to be the same in the U.S. So what if they can't do it?
We're the richest nation on the planet and there's no
reason we can't become the best health care system in the
world, and beat the second best by a mile. Well, no reason
except that congress is populated by lazy people who don't like
trying new ideas and are owned by the fucking insurance industry.
trying new ideas and are owned by the insurance industry.
\_ I'll give you a reason we can't: momentum.
http://www.kff.org/insurance/7031/print-sec1.cfm
16% of 2004 GDP is health care.
\_ We're the richest nation on the planet as long as you don't
look at our massive debt.
\_ We're the fucking richest nation on the planet as long as you
don't look at our massive debt. We're the fucking biggest
debtor nation so technically that makes us the fucking poorest
\_ We're the richest nation on the planet as long as you
don't look at our massive debt. We're the biggest
debtor nation so technically that makes us the poorest
in some ways.
\_ 1) to whom do we owe our debt? 2) how much do we
give away in foreign aid?
\_ To the Chinese, Japense, Europeans, Middle East,
a quickly rising chunk ...
We are transferring about 1% of our assets to
foreigners every year thanks to the almost $1
trillion dollar trade deficit. We give away
about $11 billion a year in foreign aid, a sum
dwarfed by our twin deficits, how is that relevant?
\_ So as long as we continue to grow the economy at
greater than 1%/year we're ok?
\- the money the govt spends on foreign aid
is irrelevant to the us economy or the
govt's budget. however, there are things
interesting about how the us govt does
choose to allocate that aid. note that
about 1/3 of the budget it to two countries:
israel and egypt. somewhere in the 5-10%
range is essentially "the drug war".
note also a bunch of this aid is tied to
buying stuff back from the US. israel
has a bunch of special things going on
as well. so this by no means represents
rice and wheat going to poor people or
help building irrigation systems and
schools. |
| 11/22 |
|
| news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20060921/bs_bw/tc20060921053503 BusinessWeek Online US Health-Care System Gets a "D" By Catherine Arnst Thu Sep 21, 3:08 AM ET The US health-care system is doing poorly by virtually every measure. That's the conclusion of a national report card on the US health-care system, released Sept. Although there are pockets of excellence, the report, commissioned by the non-profit and non-partisan Commonwealth Fund, gave the US system low grades on outcomes, quality of care, access to care, and efficiency, compared to other industrialized nations or generally accepted standards of care. Bottom line: US health care barely passes with an overall grade of 66 out of 100. The survey was carried out by 18 academic and private-sector health-care leaders, who rate the system on 37 different measures. The poor grade is particularly discomfiting, the researchers note, because the US spends more on medicine, by far, than any other country. GDP ) is devoted to health care, compared with 10% or less in other industrialized nations. Health care is also responsible for most new job creation, according to BusinessWeek's Sept. Yet the US ranks 15th out of 19 countries in terms of the number of deaths that could have been prevented. The study estimates that each year 115 out of 100,000 US deaths could have been avoided with timely and appropriate medical attention. Only Ireland, Britain, and Portugal scored worse in this category, while France scored the best, with 75 preventable deaths per 100,000. The US ranks at the bottom among industrialized countries for life expectancy both at birth and at age 60. It is also last on infant mortality, with 7 deaths per 1,000 live births, compared with 27 in the top three countries. There are dramatic gaps within the US as well, according to the study. The average disability rate for all Americans is 25% worse than the rate for the best five states alone, as is the rate of children missing 11 or more days of school. The report found that quality of care and access to care varied widely across the country, and it noted substantial gaps between national averages and pockets of excellence. The authors concluded that, if the US improved and standardized health-care performance and access, approximately 100,000 to 150,000 lives could be saved annually, along with $50 billion to $100 billion a year. The Commonwealth Fund, which studies health-care issues, commissioned the report last year as part of an effort to come up with solutions to the nation's troubled health-care system. The report "tells us that overall we are performing far below our national potential," says Dr. James J Mongan, chairman of the team that pulled together the study and chief executive officer of Partners Healthcare in Boston. "We can do much better and we need to do much better," he says. Among the reports' findings: --Only 49% of US adults receive the recommended preventive and screening tests for their age and sex. On average, measures for low income and uninsured people in these areas would have to improve by one-third to close the gap. |
| www.kff.org/insurance/7031/print-sec1.cfm Notes: With the 2004 estimates, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) incorporated new concepts, methods, and data sources in the National Health Expenditure Accounts and revised the entire time series back to 1960. According to CMS, the most important revisions were the introduction of estimates of investment in medical equipment and software, expanded estimates of investment in medical-sector structures, and the use of updated data from the US Census Bureau's 2002 Economic Census and other sources. Overall, these changes raised the estimates of health spending 3-4% for nearly all years prior to 2004. Publication Number: 7031 Information Updated: 02/08/06 Trends and Indicators in the Changing Health Care Marketplace Exhibit 12: National Health Expenditures per Capita, 1990-2004 Total health expenditures per capita were $6,280 in 2004, doubling (+123%) from $2,821 in 1990. The average annual increase in health expenditures per capita was 59% from 1990 to 2004. Notes: With the 2004 estimates, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) incorporated new concepts, methods, and data sources in the National Health Expenditure Accounts and revised the entire time series back to 1960. According to CMS, the most important revisions were the introduction of estimates of investment in medical equipment and software, expanded estimates of investment in medical-sector structures, and the use of updated data from the US Census Bureau's 2002 Economic Census and other sources. Overall, these changes raised the estimates of health spending 3-4% for nearly all years prior to 2004. Publication Number: 7031 Information Updated: 02/08/06 Trends and Indicators in the Changing Health Care Marketplace Exhibit 13: Percent Annual Increase in National Health Expenditures (NHE) per Capita vs. Increase in Consumer Price Index (CPI), 1980-2004 Growth in US per capita health spending has been higher than the growth in the CPI since 1980. Changes in per capita health spending have for the most part corresponded to changes in CPI growth. Per capita health spending growth and CPI increases deviated from each other from 2000 to 2002 as per capita health spending growth accelerated and CPI increases declined. However, in 2004, per capita health spending growth dropped to 68% after peaking at a 12-year high of 80% in 2002, while CPI growth rose from 16% in 2002 to 27% in 2004. Notes: With the 2004 estimates, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) incorporated new concepts, methods, and data sources in the National Health Expenditure Accounts and revised the entire time series back to 1960. According to CMS, the most important revisions were the introduction of estimates of investment in medical equipment and software, expanded estimates of investment in medical-sector structures, and the use of updated data from the US Census Bureau's 2002 Economic Census and other sources. Overall, these changes raised the estimates of health spending 3-4% for nearly all years prior to 2004. Publication Number: 7031 Information Updated: 02/08/06 Trends and Indicators in the Changing Health Care Marketplace Exhibit 14: Annual Change in Private per Capita National Health Spending (Adjusted for Inflation), with Historical Health Spending Events, 1960-2004 The growth rate in the portion of national health expenditures paid from private funding has cycled upward and downward over the last forty years. During this period, public and private efforts to rein in accelerating costs through wage and price controls, voluntary hospital cost containment, and most recently through managed care and the threat of health reform have triggered sharp declines in private spending growth. But these periods of decline have always proven temporary and have been followed by rapid growth in costs. Average annual growth in private per capital health spending was 37% from 1960-2004. Notes: With the 2004 estimates, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) incorporated new concepts, methods, and data sources in the National Health Expenditure Accounts and revised the entire time series back to 1960. According to CMS, the most important revisions were the introduction of estimates of investment in medical equipment and software, expanded estimates of investment in medical-sector structures, and the use of updated data from the US Census Bureau's 2002 Economic Census and other sources. Overall, these changes raised the estimates of health spending 3-4% for nearly all years prior to 2004. Other Personal Health Care includes, for example, dental and other professional health services, durable medical equipment, etc. Other Health Spending includes, for example, administration and net cost of private health insurance, public health activity, research, and structures and equipment, etc. With the 2004 estimates, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) incorporated new concepts, methods, and data sources in the National Health Expenditure Accounts and revised the entire time series back to 1960. According to CMS, the most important revisions were the introduction of estimates of investment in medical equipment and software, expanded estimates of investment in medical-sector structures, and the use of updated data from the US Census Bureau's 2002 Economic Census and other sources. Overall, these changes raised the estimates of health spending 3-4% for nearly all years prior to 2004. Publication Number: 7031 Information Updated: 02/08/06 Trends and Indicators in the Changing Health Care Marketplace Exhibit 16: Annual Percentage Change in National Spending for Selected Health Services, 1994-2004 While increases in drug spending tracked closely to increases in spending on other health services in the early 1990s, this pattern changed in the latter half of the 1990s and the early 2000s. From 1995 to 2000, increases in drug spending were two to five times larger than increases in spending on hospital care and physician services. Notes: With the 2004 estimates, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) incorporated new concepts, methods, and data sources in the National Health Expenditure Accounts and revised the entire time series back to 1960. According to CMS, the most important revisions were the introduction of estimates of investment in medical equipment and software, expanded estimates of investment in medical-sector structures, and the use of updated data from the US Census Bureau's 2002 Economic Census and other sources. Overall, these changes raised the estimates of health spending 3-4% for nearly all years prior to 2004. Other Personal Health Care includes, for example, dental and other professional health services, durable medical equipment, etc. Other Health Spending includes, for example, administration and net cost of private health insurance, public health activity, research, and structures and equipment, etc. With the 2004 estimates, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) incorporated new concepts, methods, and data sources in the National Health Expenditure Accounts and revised the entire time series back to 1960. According to CMS, the most important revisions were the introduction of estimates of investment in medical equipment and software, expanded estimates of investment in medical-sector structures, and the use of updated data from the US Census Bureau's 2002 Economic Census and other sources. Overall, these changes raised the estimates of health spending 3-4% for nearly all years prior to 2004. Publication Number: 7031 Information Updated: 02/08/06 Trends and Indicators in the Changing Health Care Marketplace Exhibit 18: Distribution of Personal Health Care Expenditures by Source of Payment, 1994 and 2004 A variety of funding sources, both public and private, contribute to US personal health care expenditures (that is, spending for health care services), and their relative shares have shifted over time. Notes: Personal health care expenditures are spending for health care services, excluding administration and net cost of insurance, public health activity, research, and structures and equipment. Out-of-pocket health ins... |