Letter to the editor:

Let’s be honest about quality of health care

Ken Anderson, Las Vegas

Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2009 | 2:03 a.m.

I recently read that Washington should not be trying to reform a health care program that is the best in the world. Anyone else heard that one before?

Well, if we want to compare America with the rest of the world in terms of life expectancy, are we in the top five, top 10? We are actually 50th, right between Wallis and Futuna, a Polynesian French island territory, and Albania. Further research would reveal that Americans pay much more for health care than other countries.

If some columnist wrote that American schools were the best in the world, I would guess that there would be arguments galore. And, strangely, people feel no remorse about bashing our schools.

But bash our health care system? Hey, that would get that a person a negative label.

I am not bashing either our schools or our health care system. I think we should be grateful that we have what we have.

However, if there is a way to either lower the cost of health care or to get more for our dollar, I am for that!

Discussion: 27 comments so far…

By Birdiedreamin

9/29/09 at 4:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

hey ken...
it is funny isn't it...
it is very simple however...
those that have do not want those that have not to have...
in a word...
greed...
at the expense of the health of innocent little children who had the misfortunate to be born into poverty...
poor kids who weren't as lucky as johnnie boy i slept with my best friend's wife, then fired them both when i got caught, ruined their lives, then ran to mommy and daddy to fix my boo boo ensign...
those innocent little kids suffer...
and the snot nosed punk ensign just takes and takes and takes...
takes his best friend's wife...
what a sad clown he is...
and oh by the way...
where the hell is the ethics investigation!!!
By LarryVegas

9/29/09 at 6:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

The latest poll by Scott Rasmussen not only shows national opposition to Obamacare rising -- now it is 41% for 56% against -- but also shows the elderly moving against it even more strongly by 33% for 59% or almost 2:1 against it...
By LarryVegas

9/29/09 at 6:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

If it's such a important issue, why doesn't the Obama administration IMMEDIATELY through a Presidential Proclamation make Medicaid available to all who can't afford health insurance and have preexisting conditions and can not obtain health insurance?

But, it's not really a important issue with the Obama administration. Obama is using it as another crisis to get a complete government takeover of the health care system.

You see, a government takeover of the health care system advances his socialist agenda.
By Houstonjac

9/29/09 at 7:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

I receive fine care here in US> It's been that way for 60 years--first under private insurance,now under Medicare. The system works fine. On Sept 21 I visited doctor about skin cancer test results. On Sept 26 I was in hospital. Operated on and out by 2 PM, home by 3 PM. Now recovering. Doctor has expert staff who have given me complete instructions on recovery.
It's been that way for 60 years. I am satisfied with my care. Obama--leave me the hell alone! Thank you!
By brownln4

9/29/09 at 9:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

birdie - The ethics investigation is right after we investigate Nancy Pelosi for her special tax treatment of tuna processing facilities that either her family or district have an interest in. The ethics investigation is after we look into Rahm sending a dead fish to a non supporter. Get off your high horse and realize that the dems are just as bad in un-ethical actions as everyone else. As Jesus once said, let him without sin cast the first stone. In Washington, no one can pick up that first stone.
By pbim72

9/29/09 at 12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

This author uses life expectancy to prove or make the case that medical care in the US is worse than countries that have higher numbers than ours. This is fallacious.

Consider this: a study out of BYU on life expectancy for Utah Mormon and Utah non-Mormon males and females and published in "Demographic Research" shows the following (http://www.demographic-research.org/volu...

""life expectancy was 77.3 for LDS males, 70.0 for non-LDS males, 82.2 for LDS females, and 76.4 for non-LDS females.."

Am I, therefore, to conclude that being a member of the Mormon Church will allow me to live longer? More germane to the current argument, can I assume from this study that the health care for Utah Mormons is better than the health care provided Utah non-Mormons. Could it be that believing in the philosophy of their church is the factor that allows them to live so much longer? These numbers are not even close. Should there be overhaul of the health care system in the state of Utah?

I think the point is well made. Just because we have different life expectancy ages than other countries does not mean that it follows that the quality of the health care system is to blame or that, more importantly, that "fixing" it will make the numbers improve
By lvmachead

9/29/09 at 1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

So Houstonjac, the public option is fine for seniors, but not for everyone, because that's what Medicare is.
By LarryVegas

9/29/09 at 1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Medicare has no completion, so it's not like a public option...
By teamster

9/29/09 at 1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Houston:

President Obama is not touching your health
care. He's helping people who don't have
health care.
By pbim72

9/29/09 at 2:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Another common fallacy illustrated in this letter is the one where the amount of money spent on a thing is compared to some 'ranking list" that does not reveal the entire picture.

To say that Americans spend more on health care than most other nations is not a bad thing. If fact, many would argue that something as important as health should consume a significant portion of a country's resources.

One small example may help. If a particular technology is developed, perfected, produced, and marketed in America and then spreads to the rest of the world then all the initial cost is borne by the US and the other countries get it for much less.

Finally, what makes any one think that the government is the answer when this writer makes his wish that, "if there is a way to either lower the cost of health care or to get more for our dollar, I am for that!" It could easily get worse.
By ghostcommander

9/29/09 at 2:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

The citizens of the USA pay more for health care than anyone in the developed countries and we get less for that care. We are #37 in quality health care. We have 47,000,000 people without health care, and 10,000,000 of the previous number are children. Costa Rico has better health care than we do!
By pbim72

9/29/09 at 2:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

37th in quality by whose standards?
By pbim72

9/29/09 at 3:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Here is what I like to call "Fun with Statistics"!

"The number of Americans admitted to hospitals for treatment of coronary artery disease declined by 31 percent between 1997 and 2007, according to the latest News and Numbers from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)".

This means that US health care, the BEST in the world, has succeeded in reducing the need for hospitalization from CAD largely because of the skill and determination of US doctors treating these patients with preventive care from their offices.
By WillieTanner

9/29/09 at 6:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

pbim72; 37th in quality by whose standards?
The World Health Organization. Another entity for your unfounded criticisms.
Go to it
I'm going to switch to being an LDS female.
By pbim72

9/29/09 at 6:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

give me the exact link
By pbim72

9/29/09 at 6:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Willie, can you give me an example of my "unfounded criticisms"?
By WillieTanner

9/29/09 at 6:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre...
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthra...
Also visit:
http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preven....
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthy_...
And my personal reason for my disdain for the US healthcare system, our embarrassing level of infant mortality due to lack of pre-natal care for uninsured expectant mothers.Scroll down to # 37 for this one.
http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranki...
PLEASE READ ALL!
By jlb101

9/29/09 at 7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

The World Health Organization rates the United States lower than other countries because we do not provide equallll treatment to everyone. Another bunch of socialist scum the WHO. Why should someone who has worked his rear off all his life have to settle for the same level of health care as some 400 pound slob who has been on the dole all his life eating big macs, guzzling beer, smoking and sitting on the couch? How about getting back to some personal responsibility. We are not all equal, it is time for the liberals to realize that.
By pbim72

9/29/09 at 7:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

The WHO? Really? That's the source you want to use to decide where you would prefer to get your health care? I doubt it.

First, the last WHO report on quality was 2000 and they are not ever going to do another one because they have decided that it is too complex of a study.

In their report, important considerations in the "quality of care" as you quote it are, "fairness in financial contribution", "responsiveness to people's expectations in regard to non-health matters", "how to compare those attainments with what the system should be able to accomplish", "A fair judgement(sic) of how much health damage it should be possible to avoid" and so on.

I mean you cannot be serious, can you. Next time you get sick why don't you use your WHO ranking list and head over to Columbia (rank #22) and get your heart bypass. You uninformed, leftist, radical liberals kill me.
By pbim72

9/29/09 at 7:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Willie, you should take a class in college level statistics such as the one I have taken. Saying that a country has a certain level of infant mortality and then quoting the amount of money spent on pre-natal care as if one causes the other would get you an "F" on the first test.

The amount of money spent on pre-natal care may or may not be a factor in infant mortality. Let us say it is. Do you think that other factors could also contribute each with a relatively unknown amount of influence on the overall rate?

For example, what about the rate of crack cocaine addicted mothers, alcoholic mothers, obese mothers with diabetes, poor mothers who qualify for Medicaid and don't sign up, poor mothers with Medicaid who still don't go to the doctors, mothers who smoke, mothers who don't eat right or take their prenatal vitamins. Do I need to go on?

I am sure your "disdain" for the US health care system won't stop you from seeing a US doctor the next time you get sick.
By pbim72

9/29/09 at 7:24 p.m.

Suggest removal

And by the way, pregnant women in America are automatically qualified for Medicaid, "Mr. Disdain".
By just_an_average_joe

9/29/09 at 8:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

"Costa Rico has better health care than we do!"

gee ghost commander I guess that's why people are going down to Costa Rica in droves to get life saving medical care, right?

get a clue.
By pbim72

9/29/09 at 8:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Amen!
By teamster

9/30/09 at 12:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

LarryVegas:

Scott Rasmussen is a Republican.
His polls can't be trusted.

Give up the B.S.
Nobody believes you.
By LarryVegas

9/30/09 at 6:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

In a recent Gallup survey, 89% of Republicans, 64% of independents, and 61% of Americans overall say Americans themselves -- rather than the government -- have the primary responsibility for ensuring that they have health insurance. Six in 10 Democrats say the government should be primarily responsible.
By rumrunner

9/30/09 at 11:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

UNTIL THERE IS A CURE FOR GREED,THERE WILL NEVER BE ANY AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE!PLAIN AND SIMPLE!!!
By LarryVegas

9/30/09 at 11:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

teamster states: "President Obama is not touching your healthcare. He's helping people who don't have health care."

If Obama is helping people who don't have health care, why doesn't the Obama administration IMMEDIATELY through a Presidential Proclamation make Medicaid available to all who can't afford health insurance and have preexisting conditions and can not obtain health insurance?

But, it's not really a important issue with the Obama administration. Obama is using it as another crisis to get a complete government takeover of the health care system.

You see, a government takeover of the health care system advances his socialist agenda.