So...I've heard stories of people waiting for months for a CT scan, then finding out their cancer is too advanced to do anything about. I have heard of people drinking water out of their flower vases because they have insufficient staff to deliver a pitcher of fresh water to each patient every morning. How is it that the NHS cannot find their butt in the dark with both hands, and our health care is bad?
I agree that "health care" in the US sucks as does the UK, Canada, Australia and many other "developed" countries - but I believe the purpose of this report is to push universal health care - that would be transitioning/nationalizing more than 15% of the economy. It gained speed under Obama and what happened to cost and options? When it gets to high, people will cry out for a solution - then the gov steps in and "solves" it by offering the benefit of euthanasia which greatly reduces government costs also helps with the pension/SS problem., and mandatory interventions (already part of Medicaid requirements). All of this is by design. So we must ask, what is the purpose of this study?
"The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is a unique forum where the governments of 37 democracies with market-based economies collaborate to develop policy standards to promote sustainable economic growth. The OECD, with its core mission to promote policies to improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world, brings much relevant experience supporting countries to achieve and sustain universal health coverage (UHC). The OECD, together with WHO and the World Bank as the Secretariat of UHC2030, is working to consolidate the UHC2030 strategic narrative and engage UHC stakeholders to promote translation of UHC commitments into action in countries." yep, NWO
The OECD monitors and evaluates key aspects of universal health coverage, and assesses the future sustainability of universal health systems. OECD country experiences can also offer valuable lessons for other countries seeking to attain universal health coverage.
As usual, I look at where the money is going to gain a better understanding of the problem. Doctors are highly paid in the US and prefer high value, low risk work. When they prescribe a pharmaceutical they remove risk as the risk if anything goes wrong transfers to the Pharmaceutical company who have deep pockets and protection via the "National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act" . Covid was a big payday for health organizations who could get up to over $100,000 for treating Covid patient so a big moneymaker. Treating cancer, diabetes and other diseases helps doctors rake in big cash along with their friends in the pharma industry. Medical debt is a big business in the US and impoverishes many. From the critics of the big pharma products we learn that few vaccines are necessary and many are more dangerous than the disease itself. The upside of giving vaccines is the money it brings in to doctors and big pharma (an upside for them but a downside for you and me and our children). I have never taken prescriptions long term and my wife has almost finished weaning herself off of her prescriptions. We are planning a pharma free future. When I look at my genealogy most of my past relatives born before 1920 who made it past childhood lived into their 80s and 90s. So how much has life expectancy really improved when you factor out car accidents and other modern technology deaths? I think the proportion of doctors who enrolled for the money rather than the care of the sick is very high.
There is a small percentage of doctors who genuinely enter the profession to help. In France doctors can't command the high earnings of U.S. doctors. When money trumps care, in a system meant to provide care, expect failure.
"universal coverage" is not a health care need but a way, allegedly, to meet or provide for health care needs. You and those authors are guilty of a major category mistake, not to mention the obvious sophistry used to encourage readers to join your commitment to collectivism. (The UN has the same committment, wishing only to carry it to a unipolarist extreme.)
Look also at the very high proportion of govermment spending in the USA. It's greater than total spending per person of all other ranked countries. You should also take note of the mental and character deformations of the Commonwealth Fund. Preoccupations include pious obsessions with "society’s most vulnerable, including people of color" and "Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion", which is race war rhetoric. The report's conclusions may be dismissed as toxic trash.
No matter what, your doctor gets paid, the hospitals get paid, the insurance companies get paid, the drug companies get paid, the medical workers get paid, and so do dozens of others connected to the health-I-couldn't-care-less mafia. Oh yes, you get paid too...often with more pain and suffering and even death.
Macroscopically speaking, aren't the pharmaceutical and medical industries making too much profit? I (Japanese, in my 70s) wonder if I should immigrate to the US and open a clinic or a pharmacy? 😆
I would like to see the health outcomes for all countries along with the expenditures. I would bet that some of the third world countries have lower excess mortality, lower disability rates and much lower overall spending than the ones beholden to big pharma.
Commonwealth Fund's site is *full* of pharma propaganda, and photos of scared people wearing masks. They also consider access to (free) vaccines a key point in what they consider "good" healthcare, and heavily promote socialized healthcare. So, ymmv.
From the perspective of "the owners / profiteers / racketeers", the US disease management is the world's best. People are just fit enough to work only when heavily medicated, but are too ill to revolt and bring their criminal owners (war crimes etc.) to justice as possible according to the Constitution. Can it be a surprise the owners want this management system to become global?
After the last four years, I don't even trust them to take my temperature correctly.
So...I've heard stories of people waiting for months for a CT scan, then finding out their cancer is too advanced to do anything about. I have heard of people drinking water out of their flower vases because they have insufficient staff to deliver a pitcher of fresh water to each patient every morning. How is it that the NHS cannot find their butt in the dark with both hands, and our health care is bad?
I agree that "health care" in the US sucks as does the UK, Canada, Australia and many other "developed" countries - but I believe the purpose of this report is to push universal health care - that would be transitioning/nationalizing more than 15% of the economy. It gained speed under Obama and what happened to cost and options? When it gets to high, people will cry out for a solution - then the gov steps in and "solves" it by offering the benefit of euthanasia which greatly reduces government costs also helps with the pension/SS problem., and mandatory interventions (already part of Medicaid requirements). All of this is by design. So we must ask, what is the purpose of this study?
"The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is a unique forum where the governments of 37 democracies with market-based economies collaborate to develop policy standards to promote sustainable economic growth. The OECD, with its core mission to promote policies to improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world, brings much relevant experience supporting countries to achieve and sustain universal health coverage (UHC). The OECD, together with WHO and the World Bank as the Secretariat of UHC2030, is working to consolidate the UHC2030 strategic narrative and engage UHC stakeholders to promote translation of UHC commitments into action in countries." yep, NWO
The OECD monitors and evaluates key aspects of universal health coverage, and assesses the future sustainability of universal health systems. OECD country experiences can also offer valuable lessons for other countries seeking to attain universal health coverage.
I agree with your assessment. The LAST thing we need is universal health care.
As usual, I look at where the money is going to gain a better understanding of the problem. Doctors are highly paid in the US and prefer high value, low risk work. When they prescribe a pharmaceutical they remove risk as the risk if anything goes wrong transfers to the Pharmaceutical company who have deep pockets and protection via the "National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act" . Covid was a big payday for health organizations who could get up to over $100,000 for treating Covid patient so a big moneymaker. Treating cancer, diabetes and other diseases helps doctors rake in big cash along with their friends in the pharma industry. Medical debt is a big business in the US and impoverishes many. From the critics of the big pharma products we learn that few vaccines are necessary and many are more dangerous than the disease itself. The upside of giving vaccines is the money it brings in to doctors and big pharma (an upside for them but a downside for you and me and our children). I have never taken prescriptions long term and my wife has almost finished weaning herself off of her prescriptions. We are planning a pharma free future. When I look at my genealogy most of my past relatives born before 1920 who made it past childhood lived into their 80s and 90s. So how much has life expectancy really improved when you factor out car accidents and other modern technology deaths? I think the proportion of doctors who enrolled for the money rather than the care of the sick is very high.
There is a small percentage of doctors who genuinely enter the profession to help. In France doctors can't command the high earnings of U.S. doctors. When money trumps care, in a system meant to provide care, expect failure.
The graph is basically a corruption level graph. Looks like we're winning the corruption level award again this year.
"universal coverage" is not a health care need but a way, allegedly, to meet or provide for health care needs. You and those authors are guilty of a major category mistake, not to mention the obvious sophistry used to encourage readers to join your commitment to collectivism. (The UN has the same committment, wishing only to carry it to a unipolarist extreme.)
Look also at the very high proportion of govermment spending in the USA. It's greater than total spending per person of all other ranked countries. You should also take note of the mental and character deformations of the Commonwealth Fund. Preoccupations include pious obsessions with "society’s most vulnerable, including people of color" and "Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion", which is race war rhetoric. The report's conclusions may be dismissed as toxic trash.
No matter what, your doctor gets paid, the hospitals get paid, the insurance companies get paid, the drug companies get paid, the medical workers get paid, and so do dozens of others connected to the health-I-couldn't-care-less mafia. Oh yes, you get paid too...often with more pain and suffering and even death.
Macroscopically speaking, aren't the pharmaceutical and medical industries making too much profit? I (Japanese, in my 70s) wonder if I should immigrate to the US and open a clinic or a pharmacy? 😆
Isn’t the Fund leftist ..why would we use that as a guide. They want universal healthcare like UN and the WHO.
Too bad we don’t treat Health Care like we do the Olympics!
I would like to see the health outcomes for all countries along with the expenditures. I would bet that some of the third world countries have lower excess mortality, lower disability rates and much lower overall spending than the ones beholden to big pharma.
thanks!
So we have the most expensive healthcare, and the worst.
We should get a prize for living in the most poorly managed nation on earth 🌎
Commonwealth Fund's site is *full* of pharma propaganda, and photos of scared people wearing masks. They also consider access to (free) vaccines a key point in what they consider "good" healthcare, and heavily promote socialized healthcare. So, ymmv.
From the perspective of "the owners / profiteers / racketeers", the US disease management is the world's best. People are just fit enough to work only when heavily medicated, but are too ill to revolt and bring their criminal owners (war crimes etc.) to justice as possible according to the Constitution. Can it be a surprise the owners want this management system to become global?