Originally posted by socool8520The mortality rate is little different (in fact in some cases it appears to be worse) than countries that aren't so excessive in their diagnosis. So objectively speaking no, it appears to be a waste of money.
Isn't finding cancer ahead of time a good thing? lol
Not that that's the point, the point is survival rates don't accurately reflect the quality of the treatment.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/3/editorial-the-statistics-of-life/
Taking the IMR numbers at face value may be misleading.
https://mises.org/library/who%E2%80%99s-bias-against-free-market-healthcare
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-worst-study-ever/
If this is true, I'm not sure how much merit their study has.
Originally posted by socool8520"Maybe" being the key word here. It appears to offer little more than speculation.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/3/editorial-the-statistics-of-life/Taking the IMR numbers at face value may be misleading.
https://mises.org/library/who%E2%80%99s-bias-against-free-market-healthcareThe study I cited was from the Commonwealth Fund, which ranked based on quality of care, access, equity, and health:https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-worst-study-ever/
If this is true, I'm not sure how much merit their study has.
They do consistently poorly in most categories.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
"Maybe" being the key word here. It appears to offer little more than speculation.
The study I cited was from the Commonwealth Fund, which ranked based on quality of care, access, equity, and health:They do consistently poorly in most categories.
It did cite that some races have higher instances of SIDS, and the US is one of, if not the most diverse countries in the world so it could reasonably skew numbers. Also, what the US classifies as a life is different from other countries which also affects numbers. It also showed a graph that the WHO used to show life expectancy was also skewed. They did not factor out deaths related to fatal accidents and the like. The US is far from perfect when it comes to healthcare, but it does look like the report was biased towards universal healthcare systems. Just my take though.
Yes, and the article I posted explained that things like quality of care were highly subjective. Admittedly, things like equity and will not be looked upon favorably because if you can't pay, you won't get the best healthcare.
Originally posted by socool8520
It did cite that some races have higher instances of SIDS, and the US is one of, if not the most diverse countries in the world so it could reasonably skew numbers. Also, what the US classifies as a life is different from other countries which also affects numbers. It also showed a graph that the WHO used to show life expectancy was also skewed. They did not factor out deaths related to fatal accidents and the like. The US is far from perfect when it comes to healthcare, but it does look like the report was biased towards universal healthcare systems. Just my take though.Yes, and the article I posted explained that things like quality of care were highly subjective. Admittedly, things like equity and will not be looked upon favorably because if you can't pay, you won't get the best healthcare. The timeliness of care is confusing to me since the link I provided showed much longer wait times in other countries for surgeries than the US.