Quality of Care

Approval Rate: 67%

67%Approval ratio

Reviews 15

Sort by:
  • by

    abichara

    Fri Mar 19 2010

    This is relatively easy to improve with a few select reforms. One, it is important to focus on preventative treatments. Most major diseases are in fact very preventable; diet (reducing intake of processed sugars, aspartame, poly-saturated fats, along with MSG and other concentrated salts) and regular moderate exercise can do a lot to reduce the occurrence of diseases like cancer, diabetes and heart disease. There aren't enough incentives in place to encourage healthier lifestyles, which contributes in part to the dysfunctional marketplace we see for health care. Food producers also should be encouraged to use healthier ingredients in their products. These small and inexpensive moves can do a lot to lower overall costs while increasing the quality of care delivery. Nutritional treatments (including the use of vitamins), must be elevated to a important role in the healthcare delivery process. The focus at this point is excessively geared towards providing expensive pharmaceutica... Read more

  • by

    pramey

    Sun Sep 13 2009

    A woman with insurance is most likely to be screened for breast cancer: 71%. A woman without insurance does not have access and will most likely not be screened. Only 31% will have had mammography. We are already rationing health care and the quality of care by shutting out those who do not have insurance.

  • by

    zencowboy

    Sun Sep 13 2009

    If we are to evolve and progress as a society we need to bring the bottom rung of society up a notch. Destitution (which spawns the plethora of social ills) is a product of neglect. When a society chooses to turn a blind eye on the maladies of the poor in favor of the miracles performed upon the rich (or well-off as they say) tension and disharmony is created. We are at a point as a nation where we are behind most of the other first world nations. We focus on treating the ailments of only those who can afford treatment rather than taking a measure to educate and possibly prevent illness nationally. This is an uncivilized (if not barbaric) way to approach things. Would our ancestors have lived to become our progenitors if the first person who learned to cook meat had kept it to themselves? What about the first people who learned not to drink standing water? Education is tantamount to success as a species. Nationalized health care would serve to not only treat all people (within... Read more

  • by

    djahuti

    Sat Sep 12 2009

    Naturally,any "care" you get is only as good as it's quality.

  • by

    eschewobfuscat_ion

    Sat Sep 12 2009

    The only real rationale for a government takeover of health care: it's bad and too many people are being failed by it. Those zany left-wingers have convinced a lot of people that health care (better known as health insurance) in the US is bad and only they can be trusted to "reform" it. Those zany right-wingers have not convinced enough people that those zany left-wingers are simply control freaks who will say or do anything to expand their sphere of influence over peoples' lives. If the US government assumes control of the American health care system, and I believe that it is inevitable, costs (and with the costs, the government deficits) will skyrocket, quality of care will decline appreciably and corruption will overtake the system through capricious rationing and power-brokering, rendering it much like every other health care system in the world. But, it will appear to be free.

  • by

    rickytickytapp_y

    Sat Sep 12 2009

    Life is short. Top quality care is a must. Universities able to use people as Guinea pigs make me sick.

  • by

    cigarrest

    Sat Sep 12 2009

    Health Care is one of the important sectory where one has to invest time and money. I recommend it with my full support Steve www.ciggarestkit.com

  • by

    gris2575

    Fri Sep 11 2009

    Anybody been to the Hospital lately? I don't know about other Cities but in the ATL it is bad. My oldest son Bashed his head in yesterday, Nothing serious but Lots of blood and he needed quite a few Stitches. I guess because of Flu Season and with many people panicking about Swine Flu, the hospital was a Mad house. I honestly was very disturbed, it was like a Third world Country in there. People literally vomiting in the Halls, patients tucked into All corners, a NINE hour wait. The Nurse said that the day before it was TEN hours. I can Appreciate that they are understaffed, I honestly can, especially now with Flu Season and such. And I am a pretty Laid back even- tempered guy but I was pretty pissed. If I knew how to sew I would have Stitched the kids head up my self. The poor overworked Nurse on duty said she figured it would Be like this until April. I know that hospitals try hard to do right by the Patients, and I know that Most ER doctors are over worked and, at least here, Many ... Read more

  • by

    seethesun

    Fri Sep 11 2009

    You are right. I have never been to a hospital emergency room where I didn't have to wait hours. It's because so many people use it for things are necessarily and emergency and clog up the system. Those for the current health care proposals will say, then that's why we need to pass one so that people will have insurance and get treatment at a GP. The problem there is that then you just transfer all those wait times over to regular practice. We don't have enough GPs right now. Imagine if 30-47 million (although, really only about 15 million) were to enter into the system without adding doctors. THE ENTIRE system, hospitals and GP would be abysmal.

  • by

    ruby9916

    Thu Sep 10 2009

    Obviously the most important item in how we should be judging any health care reforms. Back during the Cold War, RR clarified a lot of muddled thinking by pointing out that the walls erected by communists were always to keep their own people from leaving. You don't have a whole lot of emigration from Florida to Cuba, do we? Same goes for health care. When people need quality treatment, they come here to the U.S. I haven't studied it in depth, but as I understand it the stats that say our healthcare results are bad are skewed by higher traffic fatalities and violent crime -- problems that don't reflect on the healthcare system. The stats seem to support that, if you're sick, your prospects for recovery and longevity are among the very highest in the U.S. Our healthcare system has all sorts of problems, but we should certainly have a "do no harm" mentality when it comes to reforms -- we have to avoid creating bad incentives (as in other countries, where medicine becomes an unde... Read more

  • by

    victor83

    Thu Sep 10 2009

    Contrary to the propaganda posted in the list description, the US has the best quality healthcare available in the world. This is from ABC News (you know, those jerks who are in the back pocket of the RNC) Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg

  • by

    magellan

    Wed Sep 09 2009

    We are a rich country. Those among us with grave illnesses and lots of money should have access to cutting edge stuff. If you can pay, you should continue to get the very best. With our research and university infrastructure, the highest levels of our health care are the best in the world - it's important that we don't remove the incentive for cutting edge research, study, and practice to continue happening here.

  • by

    canadasucks

    Wed Sep 09 2009

    Far too varying of a category due to the different nations in question. . . . . .but I've never met one Western European that would ever change their system for ours. . .and they can't believe the conversations we're actually having. . .

  • by

    numbah16tdhaha

    Wed Sep 09 2009

    Just look at the quality of care under other government programs. That's as good as you can expect.

  • by

    fitman

    Wed Sep 09 2009

    I know anecdotal evidence isn't the best, but... When I lived in London (pre-Thatcher) I had occasion to avail myself of National Health. All I was asked at the hospital admissions desk was my name, address, phone number and symptoms. The care I recieved was timely and efficacious. Sure, a voluntary, syndicalist health care system would obviously be better than a governmental one, but anarchism isn't a probable option at this point in our social evolution, so - in my opinion - we need to settle for second best.