Exactly.

Post #65,016 by Brandioch 11/25/02 9:01:37 PM Reply	Exactly. We have the BEST care available. Just because it is not AFFORDABLE for everyone does not make it any worse. Now, many other nations will dole out care that is LESS than the BEST, but dole it out to 100% of their population. So, the portion in the US that cannot afford ANY care would, in those other countries, get BETTER care than they would in the US. But, while that care would be BETTER than what they had, it is still below the BEST care, which is in the US. Sheesh, you'd think people could understand none-better-best.
Post #65,101 by hnick 11/26/02 7:57:19 AM Reply	It's not an abstact quality, it's a commodity Health care is a commodity. It's purpose is (theoritically) to keep the populace healthy. If the populace can not access this health care for whatever reason, it is ineffectual. If it ineffectual, it is not the best. It's not even adaquate. Just because it won best-of-show for a couple things, trauma, specific surgical proceedures, come to mind, does not mean that it is adequate as a whole. If you want to argue that the purpose of health care is NOT to keep the populace healthy, you can argue by yourself.
Post #65,132 by Brandioch 11/26/02 10:42:25 AM Reply	Interesting. Health care is a commodity. It's purpose is (theoritically) to keep the populace healthy. Commodity: 1. Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage: \ufffdLeft-handed, power-hitting third basemen are a rare commodity in the big leagues\ufffd (Steve Guiremand). 2. An article of trade or commerce, especially an agricultural or mining product that can be processed and resold. 3. Advantage; benefit. Somehow, I don't see "health care" coming under definitions #1 or #2. Maybe #3, but that includes anything not detrimental. If the populace can not access this health care for whatever reason, it is ineffectual. But they can. They can buy aspirin and cough syrup at any corner store. Just because it won best-of-show for a couple things, trauma, specific surgical proceedures, come to mind, does not mean that it is adequate as a whole. Again, "best" is not "average". If you want to argue that the purpose of health care is NOT to keep the populace healthy, you can argue by yourself. Cute. Anyway, back to the coconuts. Nation B has more coconuts. Because the majority of individuals in that nation have less coconut than the individuals in Nation A does not mean that Nation B has fewer coconuts. That is the flaw in your logic. You're trying to say that unless EVERYONE in a nation has the BEST health care, that nation does NOT have the BEST health care. So, Nation B does not have the most coconuts because everyone doesn't have more coconuts than everyone in Nation A. And that is the different between BEST and AVERAGE.
Post #65,247 by Ashton 11/26/02 7:40:30 PM Reply	Ok: try 'theoretical' VS actual; potential VS performance My point(s) would remain: the PDR-mandated 'procedures' are very often NOT the most efficacious ones known to mankind. And even these are withheld from an astonishingly vast number of citizens (not to even mention the many non-citizens - without whose labours we'd all have to learn what 'a day's Hard Work' means). We have the very Best of the known techniques: in a few specialties. In that I agree with Hugh's admirably brief summation. We also have much more disinformation than useable information re Why.. (say) our cancer rates are huge and increasing at alarming rates: that is, the rate-of-increase of breast cancer is just One of these runaway areas. This apart from: "how efficacious are the Big3 ONLY-solutions" dispensed here? That is a separate question from, how artfully these procedures are usually practised and how generally available. I believe that the lack of believable and solidly relevant Information about the peculiar conditions here: our ugly junk-food habits, our earlier laissez-faire attitudes toward megatons of Corp pollution dumping into rivers and groundwater everywhere.. bad info, massaged info.. all make difficult any sane assessment overall of, "how well our med system in fact meets the peculiar needs of Muricans". Today or at any period. So I return to the one-word issue of 'BEST' and demur. I say that 'good' is a reasonable adjective for maybe almost a majority of employed population, for most problems. 'Bad to nonexistent' is reasonable depiction re the poor, the uninsured / the growing army of Corp-created 'temps' and.. certainly all the many non-citizens. Trauma alone wins unqualified Best (and only in selected big-city orgs). Even the cancer treatment selected by foreign nabobs.. can be shown to be more about propaganda and dazzlement by technology: than a clear comprehension of that person's best chances. Very few MDs will honestly present (or know of!) a comprehensive list of alternatives - especially of any outside the PDR. Think Murican law + medical Corporate care here. (Fortunately there are still a few wise practitioners about - Russian roulette finding these. Crap shoot IMhO) Rest case. Ashton I suggest that, the more you work with/around MDs, the queasier you will become (especially when you catch their repartee in unguarded moments = the only Honest talk).
Post #65,251 by Brandioch 11/26/02 8:00:50 PM Reply	I agree.

Welcome to IWETHEY!