Comments on: We’re Number One http://healthblog.ncpa.org/were-number-one/ Health Care Policy and Reform Insights | NCPA Fri, 25 May 2012 16:47:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: costa rica retirement http://healthblog.ncpa.org/were-number-one/comment-page-1/#comment-41541 costa rica retirement Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:18:35 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/were-number-one/#comment-41541 I think it is an interesting information that I heve been read, Thanks to let me write a comment in your page. Hazel I think it is an interesting information that I heve been read, Thanks to let me write a comment in your page.

Hazel

]]> By: Matthias Muenzer MD http://healthblog.ncpa.org/were-number-one/comment-page-1/#comment-38676 Matthias Muenzer MD Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:48:24 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/were-number-one/#comment-38676 Good post. And yes, cancer is a good example, since it is one the critical point where medicine not only is the most needed, where medicine is literally lifesaving, but where also a tremendous amount of research, technology development, pharmacology as well as hospital performance, availability of cancer centers, of advanced technologies such as MRI for diagnosis and radiation for treatment have to come together in coordinated fashion. It is a very complex process that challenges everyone in medicine from the primary care physician, who has a suspicion to the specialist who establishes the diagnosis to teh subspecialist who performs the treatment. The all have to work together smoothly to reach the goal. Having the best cancer survival syas more than most other criteria about quality. Using cancer treatment and it's success is an outstading parameter for the quality of helthcare. It is very suprising that Uwe Reinhardt would disagree with this, very surprising. I would love to see his response. Good post. And yes, cancer is a good example, since it is one the critical point where medicine not only is the most needed, where medicine is literally lifesaving, but where also a tremendous amount of research, technology development, pharmacology as well as hospital performance, availability of cancer centers, of advanced technologies such as MRI for diagnosis and radiation for treatment have to come together in coordinated fashion. It is a very complex process that challenges everyone in medicine from the primary care physician, who has a suspicion to the specialist who establishes the diagnosis to teh subspecialist who performs the treatment. The all have to work together smoothly to reach the goal. Having the best cancer survival syas more than most other criteria about quality. Using cancer treatment and it’s success is an outstading parameter for the quality of helthcare.
It is very suprising that Uwe Reinhardt would disagree with this, very surprising. I would love to see his response.

]]> By: Rob Rutledge http://healthblog.ncpa.org/were-number-one/comment-page-1/#comment-24653 Rob Rutledge Fri, 23 Nov 2007 16:11:08 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/were-number-one/#comment-24653 The US health care system works beautifully if you have wealth and are prepared to spend it. Wish the system works the same for the 40+ million Americans without health insurance. The US health care system mirrors the US economy where a significant divide exists between the rich and the poor and the divide is increasing. I suspect that residents of Beverly Hills have a different view of the United States than the residents of South Central Los Angeles, East St. Louis, South side of Chicago etc. And the US health care system is no different. If one has the financial position to access the best practioners in the US, there is not a better place to obtain health care. If not, the options are far less attractive. Based on this, is the US health care system really the number one system in the world? The US health care system works beautifully if you have wealth and are prepared to spend it. Wish the system works the same for the 40+ million Americans without health insurance. The US health care system mirrors the US economy where a significant divide exists between the rich and the poor and the divide is increasing.

I suspect that residents of Beverly Hills have a different view of the United States than the residents of South Central Los Angeles, East St. Louis, South side of Chicago etc. And the US health care system is no different. If one has the financial position to access the best practioners in the US, there is not a better place to obtain health care. If not, the options are far less attractive. Based on this, is the US health care system really the number one system in the world?

]]> By: Linda Gorman http://healthblog.ncpa.org/were-number-one/comment-page-1/#comment-24321 Linda Gorman Tue, 20 Nov 2007 00:28:10 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/were-number-one/#comment-24321 OK, let's not just "pick on one facet" of the ways in which US health care produces better results. In addition to better cancer survival, Americans enjoy better population blood pressure control, higher access to lifesaving therapies like dialysis, less waiting for critical surgeries like hip replacement (with accompanying reduced mortality and morbidity) and longer longevity for bypass surgery over medical management for heart disease. Its population of diabetics have better blood sugar and blood pressure control. It has lower adverse event rates in its hospitals and better infection control. Its population has better access to newer drugs with the resultant reduction in side effects. Its newborns are more likely to survive, especially low birthweight infants. And its physicians can do more on a single visit than those at the NHS because they have more capital to work with. There's more, but by now it should be clear that the superiority of the U.S. system of private medicine is not restricted to cancer. OK, let’s not just “pick on one facet” of the ways in which US health care produces better results. In addition to better cancer survival, Americans enjoy better population blood pressure control, higher access to lifesaving therapies like dialysis, less waiting for critical surgeries like hip replacement (with accompanying reduced mortality and morbidity) and longer longevity for bypass surgery over medical management for heart disease. Its population of diabetics have better blood sugar and blood pressure control. It has lower adverse event rates in its hospitals and better infection control. Its population has better access to newer drugs with the resultant reduction in side effects. Its newborns are more likely to survive, especially low birthweight infants. And its physicians can do more on a single visit than those at the NHS because they have more capital to work with.

There’s more, but by now it should be clear that the superiority of the U.S. system of private medicine is not restricted to cancer.

]]> By: Anton Shufutinsky http://healthblog.ncpa.org/were-number-one/comment-page-1/#comment-22027 Anton Shufutinsky Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:26:41 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/were-number-one/#comment-22027 Perhaps a better statement could have been "weapons-related injuries", "murder", "gang violence," or something along that line...not "shootouts in the hood." It's an embarrassment to see a nationwide health alert article use this stereotypical language...especially as sponsored by a well-educated and well-respected professional. Perhaps a better statement could have been “weapons-related injuries”, “murder”, “gang violence,” or something along that line…not “shootouts in the hood.” It’s an embarrassment to see a nationwide health alert article use this stereotypical language…especially as sponsored by a well-educated and well-respected professional.

]]> By: Gerry Musgrave http://healthblog.ncpa.org/were-number-one/comment-page-1/#comment-22000 Gerry Musgrave Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:45:08 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/were-number-one/#comment-22000 Look at the graph <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6955545.stm#link" rel="nofollow">from this study</a>. If you ran a regression of these data I think the economics would really dominate--especially for woman. Money matters. Countries do get a big benefit from spending--just what we have been saying for years! Look at the graph from this study. If you ran a regression of these data I think the economics would really dominate–especially for woman. Money matters. Countries do get a big benefit from spending–just what we have been saying for years!

]]> By: John Gavras http://healthblog.ncpa.org/were-number-one/comment-page-1/#comment-21986 John Gavras Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:53:28 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/were-number-one/#comment-21986 Well stated. Well stated.

]]> By: Sara Sue http://healthblog.ncpa.org/were-number-one/comment-page-1/#comment-21985 Sara Sue Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:50:13 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/were-number-one/#comment-21985 Really enjoyed this. Really enjoyed this.

]]> By: Uwe Reinhardt http://healthblog.ncpa.org/were-number-one/comment-page-1/#comment-21984 Uwe Reinhardt Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:48:35 +0000 http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/were-number-one/#comment-21984 With all due respect, John, picking on just one facet -- cancer -- on which we had declared war and spent huge amounts of money, as an indicator of a health system is not more honest than the horrible WHO report. I really mean that, John. Cancer is one dimension surely worth dwelling on, but to rank entire health systems by it strikes me as a bit looney. With all due respect, John, picking on just one facet — cancer — on which we had declared war and spent huge amounts of money, as an indicator of a health system is not more honest than the horrible WHO report. I really mean that, John. Cancer is one dimension surely worth dwelling on, but to rank entire health systems by it strikes me as a bit looney.

]]>