there are various metrics that academics commonly use to evaluate the relative performance of health care systems. Most of the common metrics show the USA is not doing well as compared to other advanced nations. And sadly, the new GOP plan would likely make our healthcare worse according to these common metrics. What would be some good or acceptable metrics by which we might evaluate the sucess of any changes to our healthcare system? Basically.... what are we trying to accomplish?
Seems like a pretty significant factor How about some other metrics such as infant mortality or life expectancy Btw... you did not propose a metric that you feel would accurately measure whether our heath care system is improving in response to newly proposed policies
I am not sure infant mortality and life expectancy are necessarily a good way to gauge healthcare since those arguably have a lot to do wit other things lying outside the walls of the medical provider. I guess immunizations tangent in there somewhere but I am not sure that is really what we are going for. You are correct, however, about me not proposing a metric as I am trying still to think of one as I look at such things more holistically over a wide array. Bounceback rates might be one thing that should be considered as it umbrellas several issues related to quality of care.
I understand that such metrics will be rejected, Which is why I asked for alternative metrics That being said, it seems like many/most other nations evaluate health care on the basis of wanting to achieve a generally healthy population... and generally the conservative point of view rejects such metrics. Let me make a comparison... hopefully it is a fair comparison From an economic perspective some nations may seek to achieve a high median income or reduce poverty rates. Otoh a conservative perspective may seek to maximize each individuals opportunities to become wealthy without concern for general welfare. So in that context... perhaps we could evaluate our national health care on the opportunity for people to be healthy if they have money and are self motivated to learn and pursue a healthy life style... is that fair? Well that gets into issues of public health... which gets into government involvement and funding, rather than recognizing personal responsibility Not sure what are bounce back rates?
Fair to you is anything you think is fair based on your perspective. To me it seems as if you are focused only on one side of the equation. I personally think that the economic models have to include a system that is sustainable without perpetual government funding. I don't view healthcare as a business any differently than I do a business that makes kitchen cabinets. I don't think the government should interfere with the medical providers any more than it should with the cabinet maker but instead find better ways to fill the gaps while leaving the enterprises to fend for themselves. I am not sure how much of the funding for immunizations is done by the government, at least in the US. Seems like most people have to pay for those immunizations or get them paid for by their carrier. It isn't like CVS really gives free flu shots. Someone pays them to give flu shots. Re-admission rates to hospitals for the same illness/injury because the person did not get the proper treatment the first time or were released too early.
Not really. I am trying to understand and state a policy point of view that is not my own. I invite anyone to correct or more fairly state the position So (correct me if i am wrong). You would get rid of Medicare, and the FDA, along with all public health departments and initiatives, and funding, You would let people who have no means die on the street? You would eliminate all funding for health care for poor children.... etc? Certainly government research is largely responsible for developing vaccines, as well as many many other drugs and treatments Who would gather and disseminate these statistics Btw, there are many other such statistics.... such as medical accidents, hospital infections, Pill mill doctors, etc
In which case I think I have correctly characterized the conservative view as an opportunity based system... whether it be kitchen cabinets or healthcare People have the opportunity to sell any product they wish, and to buy what ever product they wish and can afford
I don't know what the conservative point of view can be characterized as. As I indicated, the government should focus more on filling the gaps instead of punishing the many for the sake of the few
State what position? Nothing I said even implied that. Medicare is a government gap filler which is what I said the government should be doing. So they help fill a gap as I indicated they should. The easter bunny I guess because Lord knows such data isn't fairly widely available I said, in part, "...I look at such things more holistically over a wide array. Bounceback rates might be one thing that should be considered as it umbrellas several issues related to quality of care." Seems to me you are more looking to argue if you are not even reading what people post while drawing conclusions based on your assumptions about what people believe instead of what people actually state.
