See other Health Articles
Title: HEALTH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AMERICANS & EUROPEANS
Source:
doctorwascher.com
URL Source: http://doctorwascher.com/Archives/2-22-09.htm
Published: Feb 22, 2009
Author: Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS
Post Date: 2009-11-02 16:41:11 by Destro
Keywords: None
Views: 2184
Comments: 150
By, Robert A. Wascher, MD, FACS Last Updated: 02/22/2009 HEALTH DIFFERENCES BETWEEN AMERICANS & EUROPEANS I have commented before about the striking discordance between the amount of money that we spend on health care in the United States and the health outcomes that we achieve with all of those dollars. At more than $2 trillion dollars per year, or more than $7,000 per citizen per year, the U.S. spends more on health care than virtually every other country in the world. One would, therefore, assume that all of those trillions of health care dollars would translate into a globally unsurpassed level of health and wellbeing in America. However, one would actually be mistaken in this assumption, as the United States lags behind many other countries of the world, including a few relatively underdeveloped countries, in several very important public health benchmarks. As if this were not bad enough, the world’s richest nation has an estimated 47 million uninsured citizens, with millions more possessing utterly inadequate health insurance coverage (millions of us in this country are just one serious illness away from financial ruin). Health care reform in the United States continues to be a political “third rail,” although virtually all stakeholders are in agreement that our healthcare system is dysfunctional and inefficient, and that it offers the American people very poor value for their money. However, there is considerable disagreement regarding the root causes that underlie the acknowledged deficiencies in our health care system, which means that there is also pervasive disagreement regarding the best interventions to undertake. Amidst the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, and with no end in sight to the ongoing Not-Quite-As-Great-Depression, it is unclear whether or not the fledgling Obama Administration will be able to assemble the political capital and the will to wade into the treacherous waters of health care reform within the foreseeable future. A new research study, just published in the American Journal of Public Health, provides a rather stark comparison between the health status of rich and poor adults in the United States and Europe. In this study, more than 17,000 adults between the ages of 50 and 74 years were interviewed from among 10 European countries. Nearly 7,000 Americans of similar age were also interviewed for this study. The researchers assessed these 24,000 middle-aged and elderly adults for 6 chronic illnesses that are commonly accepted as indicators of the overall health of a society. In general, the American adults reported poorer overall health than their European counterparts. While the differences in health between the two groups of adults were, not surprisingly, more pronounced among poorer patients, even the wealthier Americans reported more problems with their health when compared to wealthy Europeans. At the same time, the gap in health status between rich and poor was much smaller among Europeans than was observed among the American patients who participated in this study. (As a striking example of the health disparities between Americans and Europeans, heart disease, the number one cause of death in most developed countries, was present in 18 percent of Americans, but in only 11 percent of Europeans, in this study.) This study puts some important numbers on health trends that have become increasingly obvious over the past few decades. When comparing health outcomes between two populations of patients that live in similarly modern, industrialized, and western societies, the United States fares very poorly, indeed. Our nation’s focus on disease prevention is haphazard and poorly executed, resulting in unacceptably high rates of preventable diseases and disease-related complications. Rather than investing our nation’s wealth in disease prevention and screening programs, we, instead, backload our inefficient and byzantine health care system with trillions of dollars, every year, to treat the complications of diseases that are, in many cases, almost entirely preventable. European countries spend, on average, only 50 to 60 percent as much on health care, per capita, as we do here in the United States, and yet their health outcomes frequently exceed ours in multiple critical areas of public health. While we may not all agree on every detail, almost all of us agree that our health care system is fundamentally broken, and that we cannot go on with “business as usual” any longer. Despite the ongoing implosion of the economy, we must somehow find the will and the foresight to overhaul our current fractured and wasteful health care system, including a much greater emphasis on promoting healthful lifestyle habits, and improved disease prevention and screening programs. As the average age of our population continues to rise, our ongoing failure to step up to the plate and fix our dysfunctional health care system will, increasingly, cost our nation dearly. Poster Comment: Doctor Wascher's Biography@ http://doctorwascher.com/Doctor%20Wascher%20Bio%20-%202008.htm
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-82) not displayed.
.
.
.
#83. To: Rotara, Christine (#79)
JT doing the spinning as usual so you can email it. I have never insisted it is an R but I do not consider a serial nonvoter as even having the right to a opinion much less calling other posters to commit sedition and other illegal acts, even wishing for nuclear holocaust.... as a former cop who is probably still under oath???? But being it needs Christine to come to it's rescue now and then I did have my doubts about it being male, or else it's a big donor. Something I had not wanted to think Christine capable of until yesterday.
It would do no good to tell you who I voted for as YOU hate the R Candidate I voted for. Maybe I should be a serial non voter bitching about who won. There ....that would get your respect!!!lololol
That's just your hands shaking from your weekend binge and DT's you are recovering from.
Where do you people hatch and grow ?
as you keep saying...
lolololololol
Now that is the best question you have asked today. There are 130 million losers out there that did their "patriotic duty" as programmed and voted for the "loser" of their choice. You need to bone up on the terms..GULLIBLE...NAIVE...PROGRAMMED.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I still don't believe you are quite telling the truth. Keep up the good behavior though. You are just tooo funny. I do wish gramps had dropped young Master Nixon on his head, since he later made spinning into an art form imitated far and wide.
You're still not even interesting. Will you be offended if I completely ignore you ? I hope so...
I would miss Fred. : )
And hated by republican regulars and spinners. Just mentioning or even inferring Ron Paul often brings out the true colors of many a poster as they sidle around the dratted offender trying to disenfranchise without appearing obvious. lolol
I hope so... Sob, sob..... Why I'm just devastated to be ignored by a drunk. What if the revo happens and you are in a blackout?
There was no "choice" beyond Paul in the last fraud election. As time passes, it becomes more evident that Paul being just another professional politician, ran for a purpose, however not a run for president. Paul served the "system" in that he kept any other legitimate third party candidate from getting off the ground. When his mission was complete, he folded his tent and stole back into his beloved republican party, welcomed with open arms, for a job well done. With Paul a non factor from the opening bell, the system had scammed the process one more time. A nation of programmed sheep is proven by what we now see happening this very day...wonder of wonders the republican most likely will awaken from the dead and move into the spotlight... It is nothing but a shell game.
Since I'm not a seer I can only act on info I had garnered up until the election. Really... I need to go now as a dear friend and mentor, a woman who made Sarah Palin seem like a rank amateur in the hunting department died over the weekend and her funeral is tomorrow. I need to get tomorrow's chores done today.
bump
how many days without fred posting (nothing) before you notice you miss the mertz ?
(nothing) is so subjective, Rotara. : ) Fred is always nice to me, this was true when I was over at LP too. He's never said an unkind word to me.
Bump #95 again, please.
Here's the difference between what you said and what I said, Fred. Destro earned the term "socialist goose stepper" through his posts. The material he posted was consistently of the socialist persuation and he could not defend the content when challenged because he had accepted its ideology on blind faith and had not reflected on the pros and cons or even read outside the party line, so to speak. Indeed Destro was a closed minded follower of dogma and I referred to his behavior accordingly. When I asked you for evidence to support your knee jerk label of me as a fascist goose stepper, you would not because you could not. Your response to randge demonstrates the depth of your reasoning.
Who were these "legitimate third party candidates" that Paul single handedly, like a super hero, kept "from getting off the ground"? And what is this "stole back to the republican party" business? Paul ran as a republican and remains a republican, far more republican that Juan McAmnesty or Mittens Romney could ever fathom with his truly small government ways and mentality. This is the silliest arguement of Paul having dubious and sinister aspirations that I have ever heard, Cyni.
I love it when you do that...
What's more important; the repubican party, the RAT party or America ? What time do you think it is ??
I would have never used or thought to use that term until I saw your reply. So I replied to you in kind.
America, of course. Paul came into this election with the experience of having run previously as a viable third party candidate. He already knew that the game was rigged against any third party opposition. He felt that the only way he could help this nation was to run as a republican and bring the issues that this party ignores to light, to show that many still believe in our Constitution and small government principles. His contention had long been that the party had turned its back on core principles, but he did not. He took the most viable route through the election process for the good of this nation. You can lament the viability of third party candidates until the cows come home, but that does not change the fact that the entire system is rigged to keep them out. Paul didn't make this true, he simply acknowledged this sad truth and planned his strategy accordingly.
thinking=good reacting=not so good
Well said.
Lets assume you watched one of the first republican debates held in New England that played on national TV. If indeed you watched and listened, did you find something strange that Paul was laughed off stage by several of the other pubs? Do you recall what if anything Paul said to defend himself??? The other debates played out much the same way, with Paul seemingly unconcerned by the abuse heaped upon him by his fellow republicans. Anyone remotely vetted in politics cast a jaundiced eye on such apathy. And then out of the blue, after collecting millions of dollars from the rubes, came the Trotski memo. What an oddity that was. Paul went to great extreme to profess his fidelity to the republican party and he would always remain a republican. How odd, he quit to "fight" for his seat in congress. He won easily as usual. Now Paul is allowing his son to use his donor mailing lists to solicit more millions for his run for the Senate. Total loss of integrity there. Politics is a dirty business and regardless of what they say, each and everyone of them are professional politicians.
it depends on what your definition of effective is. i think my Mission Statement is quite clear about for whom i created this forum. it is first and foremost for America Firsters. of what value is having those who have admitted that they are anti-American and hold a world view and ideology that is completely anathema to my/our values and attack me and us at every opportunity? i wouldn't offer my home to a person like that nor will i provide a forum.
But, Cynicom, as I recall, Ron Paul stated right from the start that he was not planning to run as anything but as a GOP Pres candidate. He made it abundantly clear that he would not be switching to run as a Third Party Pres candidate so that meant he was willing to ride out the predictable back stabbing from his own party to get media exposure for his conservative ideas. He also made no bones about the fact that of the 2 national parties we currently have, he identified more closely with the GOP. The fact that in current federal elections, conservative candidates are actually challenging GOP anointed RINO ones, is not accidental - I think it comes from Ron Paul's GOP Pres candidacy run - he has given courage to other conservatives within the GOP who would otherwise be silent, and that in itself is quite an accomplishment. I'm guessing this is what Ron Paul came to realize over the years he's served in Congress - ie. that this nation will continue to have a 2 party political system for many many years to come and of the 2 parties the one that might have an iota of hope for reform from within is the GOP, and not the Dem Party. You can argue that this type of thinking may seem too pragmatic or too pessimistic, but I don't think you can label it a double cross or a betrayal or Trotsky-like. Ron Paul ran his GOP Pres candidacy campaign as long as he could. He called it quits when the numbers clearly showed there was no chance and that point he focused his attentions on campaigning to retain his congressional seat. What else should he have done, in your opinion? Regarding Ron Paul's call for donations, paying for a Pres candidate campaign is an incredibly expensive undertaking. Are you suggesting that Ron Paul profited personally from the donations he collected - that he didn't use the $ to pay off the campaign debts he had accumulated? Regarding Ron Paul's son using his father's donor list, it's to be expected - Rand is an aspiring politician - where else would he start to find potential donors for a platform that is based on conservative principles he shares with his Dad?
Anyone that seriously concerns themselves with politics has to sweep from their minds those arcane labels that are so easily applied to politicians. Left, right, lib, con, moderate, extremist and of course republican and democrat. All of those labels are used for a purpose, in theory, to assure the voters that there are differences across the political spectrum. In practice, ALL politicians have but one goal in mind, the possession of power, no exceptions. If acceptance of that premise is not possible, any further study will be flawed. My political awakening was way back, when the most used terms were dem and pub, and Eisenhower was considering running for president. Both major political parties overwhelmingly offered Ike the candidacy on a silver platter, with NO pre conditions, with NO examination of his views, none. Mind you, both major parties were made up of all those labels above, left, right etc etc, yet no one asked what label Ike was under, no one. How was this possible entered my mind. The answer is really quite simple, all of those labels are there to program the voters, to make sure he knows dems are all bad and out to destroy capitalism and that pubs are equally bad and will aid only the super rich. Proof you ask??? Statistics gives you the answer, do you find it odd that there is a huge difference in parties, and yet in most national elections there is but...one or two percent difference...in the total vote count???? Just perhaps it is manufactured that way??? Just perhaps there are a few people staging the entire charade. I had doubt about "parties" from that time on. Ike as a pub had his turn, then it went to the dems for eight years, then back to pubs for eight years, with few exceptions it is akin to a pendulum. Evenly balanced, back and forth, very nicely orchestrated, fifty fifty, with the voters fully convinced they are making a choice.
I would have never used or thought to use that term until I saw your reply. So I replied to you in kind. So by virtue of the fact that scrapper used the term "goose stepper," she is therefore a fascist, nazi, goose stepper - whatever. Tautologically tremendous & splendid logic. We'll keep you around for laughs.
I take offense when anyone uses twenty dollar words.
You may safely ignore my nickel-plated diction. When I get a wild hair, I like to brandish it at odd moments like a cheap revolver.
What you say, Cynicom, is true and as you point out has been known for a long time - both parties are slimey and corrupt and have become more similar than dissimilar. BUT as abraxas pointed out, and I agree with abraxas, whether we like it or not, our nation is based on a 2 party system. Ron Paul years ago thought that a Third Party was viable and he quickly found out he was wrong. And he came to the realization that the system is what it is - he did not create it but he needed to work within it in order for his conservative ideals to have any hope of seeing the light of day in the public political theater. Ron Paul made a considered pragmatic decision that of the 2 parties, the GOP was the best vehicle to use for getting those ideals out for the public's consideration and possibly to even effect changes within the GOP party itself by attracting other conservatives. As I stated previously, you may not like Ron Paul's decision but I don't think you can fault him for keeping his decision under raps, and only revealing his intentions to his surprised supporters at the last minute. From the get go, Ron Paul said he was planning to run as A GOP CANDIDATE and whenever he was asked if he would consider running as a Third Party candidate, he said "no." Ron Paul did not deceive his supporters but some had hopes that he was going to eventually change his mind and were disappointed when he simply followed through on what he said he'd do.
Exactly correct. I only wish that he'd spoken out, and challenged, the electronic vote fraud that began in NH and continued throughout the country.
In fact it is NOT true. We have a one party system of government. One last example. If Ike had run as say a socialist, he would not have won, if he ran as a dem or pub, he was a shoo in. How can that be? Same man. How is that possible? Ron Paul was the best man on the platform to be President. He never got out of the gate, he was laughed off stage with the merry help of the media. He was the hope of this country, at least those that resist the current one party system.
let me ask a question. do you believe that US presidential elections are legit or do you believe, as i do, that they are a complete fraud, and that the winner is chosen by the shadow government (years in advance, imo)?
that's where i'm going with my question.
Never at any time did Paul defend himself, never. Voting fraud. Laffed off stage, nothing. Total apathy.
I think the Presidential candidates of both parties are selected by very powerful movers and shakers and quite possibly there's collusion in that one party's selected candidate in recent years especially seems weaker, ensuring that the other party's candidate will win. However, with our two party system firmly entrenched, with our electorate having become sufficiently dumbified over time through our public system and Third World immigration, and with our MSM being controlled by a handful of owners frankly the moneyed powerful people don't need to engage in collusion. Regardless of which party's candidate wins the WH, the rich and powerful always win. Postscript: I don't think Pres candidates are selected years in advance, although there is "spotting" of those with potential or who have dark horse candidate possibilities years in advance eg. Obama and appropriate leg ups given to that person for upward mobility in the party hierarchy due to anticipated future return favors. Yes, voter fraud is rampant.
Comments (123 - 150) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThe people's nest has room, that's for certain...
#84. To: Rotara (#81)
You are one of the fucking losers that jumped from Ron Paul to Barry Soetoro the Kenyan usurper puppet...
#85. To: Rotara (#82)
you seem more nervous than usual today mg...
#86. To: mininggold (#83)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams 
#87. To: mininggold (#85)
lololololol
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#88. To: mininggold (#84)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#89. To: Rotara (#86)
Where do you people hatch and grow ?
#90. To: Rotara (#88)
lolololololol
#91. To: mininggold (#90)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#92. To: Rotara, fredmertz (#77)
no one will miss you...
#93. To: Cynicom (#89)
You need to bone up on the terms..GULLIBLE...NAIVE...PROGRAMMED.
#94. To: Rotara (#91)
Will you be offended if I completely ignore you ?
#95. To: mininggold (#93)
And hated by republican regulars and spinners. Just mentioning or even inferring Ron Paul often brings out the true colors of many a poster as they sidle around the dratted offender trying to disenfranchise without appearing obvious. lolol
#96. To: Cynicom (#95)
(Edited)
As time passes, it becomes more evident that Paul being just another professional politician, ran for a purpose, however not a run for president.
#97. To: Cynicom (#95)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#98. To: abraxas (#92)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#99. To: Rotara (#98)
how many days without fred posting (nothing) before you notice you miss the mertz ?
#100. To: Cynicom, all (#95)
#101. To: Fred Mertz, randge (#70)
Who used the term goose stepper first? I was just replying in kind.
#102. To: Cynicom (#95)
Paul served the "system" in that he kept any other legitimate third party candidate from getting off the ground. When his mission was complete, he folded his tent and stole back into his beloved republican party, welcomed with open arms, for a job well done.
#103. To: scrapper2 (#101)
excellent closer
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#104. To: abraxas (#102)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
#105. To: scrapper2 (#101)
Here's the difference between what you said and what I said, Fred.
#106. To: Rotara (#104)
What's more important; the repubican party, the RAT party or America ?
#107. To: Fred Mertz (#105)
I would have never used or thought to use that term until I saw your reply. So I replied to you in kind.
#108. To: abraxas (#106)
Paul came into this election with the experience of having run previously as a viable third party candidate. He already knew that the game was rigged against any third party opposition. He felt that the only way he could help this nation was to run as a republican and bring the issues that this party ignores to light, to show that many still believe in our Constitution and small government principles. His contention had long been that the party had turned its back on core principles, but he did not. He took the most viable route through the election process for the good of this nation.
#109. To: abraxas (#102)
This is the silliest arguement of Paul having dubious and sinister aspirations that I have ever heard, Cyni.
#110. To: mininggold (#71)
#111. To: Cynicom (#109)
(Edited)
And then out of the blue, after collecting millions of dollars from the rubes, came the Trotski memo. What an oddity that was. Paul went to great extreme to profess his fidelity to the republican party and he would always remain a republican. How odd, he quit to "fight" for his seat in congress. He won easily as usual.
#112. To: scrapper2, Jethro tull, randge, All (#111)
#113. To: Fred Mertz (#105)
Here's the difference between what you said and what I said, Fred.
#114. To: randge (#113)
Tautologically tremendous & splendid logic.
#115. To: Cynicom (#114)
#116. To: Cynicom, abraxas, Jethro tull, randge, All (#112)
#117. To: scrapper2. all (#116)
From the get go, Ron Paul said he was planning to run as A GOP CANDIDATE and whenever he was asked if he would consider running as a Third Party candidate, he said "no." Ron Paul did not deceive his supporters but some had hopes that he was going to eventually change his mind and were disappointed when he simply followed through on what he said he'd do.
#118. To: scrapper2 (#116)
BUT as abraxas pointed out, and I agree with abraxas, whether we like it or not, our nation is based on a 2 party system.
#119. To: scrapper2, abraxas, mininggold (#116)
#120. To: Lod, scrapper2, abraxas, mininggold (#117)
only wish that he'd spoken out, and challenged, the electronic vote fraud that began in NH and continued throughout the country.
#121. To: christine (#120)
#122. To: christine (#119)
(Edited)
.
.
.