View Single Post
      10-21-2014, 12:03 PM   #48
128Convertibleguy
Captain
42
Rep
704
Posts

Drives: 2010 128 Covertible
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Mountains

iTrader: (0)

Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalko43 View Post
Point 1. True private health insurance/care (whereby an Italian citizen pays a private health care provider to provide medical care outside of the government-run system) is held by only 10% of the Italian population (at least as of 2008).

Point 2. What measures or standards are you comparing and where is your data?

Point 3. Also, when well-to-do Italians need specialist care or complex surgery, guess where they go for that medical care....they go to America.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...are/50807584/1

Point 4. I do have to say though, your "better results for less money" is not only extremely subjective
I would encourage you to do more thorough research and look for contrarian sources, rather than just using sources that 'fit' your narrative. Here is a think-tank policy paper that you might find quite interesting.

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f...pdf/pa-613.pdf

Point 5. To repeat what I said earlier...banning civilian flights to and from Ebola-infected countries doesn't preclude the US government, and others, from chartering flights or sending military aircraft into those countries to maintain medical support.
You don't like reading long posts (although you seem to enjoy writing them), so I'll limit this to short answers on a few key points. It's not nearly all of the errors.

1. Chuckle. You're simply supporting my case. Because the national health care insurance takes care of most all of their needs. With care that is at least as good, and arguably better, than ours.

2. Let's take infant mortality. Because it's a sitter. We really suck, and the difference is far more than quibbles about methodology. Here's a take, from the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2091rank.html

TWICE the rate. That ain't methodology, even our own doctors agree.

3. For a few high tech procedures, that few people ever need (like heart transplants), we're the gold standard. We do quite well at things for the rich.

For handling the stuff most everyone needs, we really suck. Which is why our stats are so bad. Vastly more American citizens (compared with the few rich foreigners who come here for the unusual) go overseas for that stuff (dental work, joint replacements, prescription drugs, etc. etc.) because it's cheaper and just as good if not better. Google "medical tourism" for details.

4. I have looked at the data, and read the paper you cite, and others like it. The paper is mostly a pile of subjective crap, flavored with a few carefully cherry picked places where we have an advantage. Where it does quote actual numbers on broad measures they agree with me. The data on this is clear and overwhelming. For health care as a whole, we pay more and get less.

We do lead the world in unnecessary procedures, such as CT scans for screening well people (because we have far more scanners than we actually need, and there's money to be made), heart surgery for conditions where medication and diet have been proven to be equally effective, etc. etc. Two non political sources for you (unlike the CATO Institute you cited for me).

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...e-unnecessary/

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/m...sary/index.htm

Bottom line. The dead horse here is the American system of private health insurance. It's been proven over and over again, by a great many people, to be more costly and less effective than national health care insurance. In many, many, countries. Including the wonderfully efficient (sarcasm) Italy. You can keep trying to defend it, but I have the far easier job of shooting that defense down.

Even Republican (governors) agree with me, as quoted above.

To get back to the thread. 5. Please show me where in my posts I have cited transporting health care workers. I haven't. Transporting health care workers is a red herring that has nothing to do with the real issues. I've restated the experts views that a travel ban will make the risk in our country worse. Which is why the EU rejected a travel ban.

And, if they don't have one, we don't have one, unless we stop all flights from overseas. The world is connected, and we have to deal with that, not pretend we can suspend that reality at will. Mario Rubio seems to differ with me about that. He's smart enough to know better, it's shameful, and shameless political crap.

To get back to the title of the thread. Doctors without Borders sounded the alarm about Ebola this spring. They told everyone that it was only a matter of time before it knocked at their door. And the developed world ignored them. It's another reason we're now terrified. And let unscrupulous journalists fan our largely unjustified fears. As I pointed out 43 (maybe 48, I've seen both) people with considerable contact with the one dead Ebola patient are disease free. You indeed have insignificant risk from casual contact.

Last edited by 128Convertibleguy; 10-21-2014 at 03:14 PM..