Jump to content

The Bush Doctrine


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:

I can say it: "They are the best". The US health care system is unequalled in the world. When a rich or powerful world leader gets ill, do they go to the Mayo Clinic, or Havana Medical University?


The Mayo clinic is the exception to the rule. They are probably the best medical facility in the world. But they don't just hire internal US doctors. They hire the BEST in their profession, whereever they are from, so long as they are able to communicate with their patients (thus speak English). But also, the Mayo Clinic isn't usually covered by insurance. Mostly cause it's REALLY DAMN EXPENSIVE...

I'm not referring to Mayo's when I suggest that the US healthcare system is not the best. Mayo's in some ways, is more the world healthcare system that just happens to be located in the USA. It is clearly unaffected by most US policies regarding healthcare. It would not surprise me to hear that Mayo's opens a branch elsewhere in the world in the near future. Just to expand those it can treat. This would clearly designate it as being outside the US healthcare system.

When I say US healthcare, I refer to standard hospitals and doctor's offices, as well as those "Urgent care" facilities. Hospitals, I give a 4.5, urgent care, 4.4, doctor's offices, 4, maybe 3.5...out of 5 BTW...

Mayo's, of course, would be the 5s...

Still, I'd like to hear what people have to say about Cuba. Otherwise all this is rather moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

The Mayo clinic is the exception to the rule. They are probably the best medical facility in the world.

There are several dozen medical centers in the U.S. that rival the Mayo; it is not really that unique. Most states have a medical school with adjacent medical center which give high quality tertiary/quaternary medical care. I think your own Buckeye Cleveland Clinic rivals the Mayo.

quote:

When I say US healthcare, I refer to standard hospitals and doctor's offices, as well as those "Urgent care" facilities. Hospitals, I give a 4.5, urgent care, 4.4, doctor's offices, 4, maybe 3.5...out of 5.


If we ignore the possible 3.5, these look like pretty high scores. Is the expectation that generalist Dr. Jones down the street has the same quality in every field as a hyperspecialist at the Mayo Clinic a realistic one? The perception frequently follows that the greater the degree of specialization a physician has, the greater his skill. The generalist, however, actually has the hardest task of separating the "worried well" and self-resolving illnesses from those needing primary or secondary care.

Your comments seem to suggest a feeling that a significant number of U.S doctors are little more than money grubbers. These people are typically the brightest in our schools, and there are easier ways for smart people to make money than spending 8-10 years at no or low pay to go through med school, residency, and fellowship training.

Which country do you think has better medical quality? Do you think Cuba actually has a higher quality of medicine, or just a better delivery system. A socialist system can typically deliver a service better in a mandated system, but the quality fails. This includes any social service.

[ 06-08-2001: Message edited by: thanatos ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Your comments seem to suggest a feeling that a significant number of U.S doctors are little more than money grubbers. These people are typically the brightest in our schools, and there are easier ways for smart people to make money than spending 8-10 years at no or low pay to go through med school, residency, and fellowship training.


There are always people at the bottom of their class. People who do poorly in Medical school, and are JUST able to pass and get their MD. There are also people who got moderate grades.

Remember, medicine is one of the highest paying professions out there (once you get into Gen Prac or administrative positions in a hospital). It has a significant greed draw. Significant enough, that people would go through all the hoops, just to get to it.

Now, as you mentioned that socialist countries are often better at delivery. (I'm not a socialist, remember this) Is not delivery a very critical part of heathcare system? Let's say, for the sake of arguement, that Cuban doctors are marginally worse than the American doctors in their ability to practice medicine. However, the delivery system, getting the service to the patient, is 2 steps better than American service (purely hypothetical). This would result in a higher quality healthcare system than America. Which is exactly what has been being discussed in this thread.

That a dictatorship, such as Cuba, can result in better services, sometimes. Which ties directly in with the arguement that Cuba's problems may be related more directly to the embargo, than with Cuba's government.

If instead of embargo, the USA tried to help Cuba become a more democratic nation. Through incentives, instead of punishment (carrot, instead of stick). It would probably turn out to be a really nice place.

Instead, it remains a dictatorship, very possibly, because America continues it's embargo. Which forces Castro to keep tight control, otherwise it would just collapse into chaos. Remember, when one person runs a country, things are done FAST. Problems are solved immediately (sometimes not to the liking of anybody except the dictator, i.e. shooting people). Which means, as long as Cuba remains under embargo, Castro will be forced to remain in power, so that the country doesn't fall apart.

A possible way to solve this problem, would be to propose a treaty with Castro. For each step towards democracy he takes, part of the embargo will be lifted. Once they are a democracy, with at least 2 parties, and checks and balances, similar to the USA...no more embargo. I say similar, because the USA is not perfect. Who knows, maybe democratic Cuba would find a better government than the USA? Purely hypothetical, of course.

Personally, I think the USA would do a heck of a lot better in international relations, if it used carrots more than sticks...Carrots with a cost, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Your comments seem to suggest a feeling that a significant number of U.S doctors are little more than money grubbers. These people are typically the brightest in our schools, and there are easier ways for smart people to make money than spending 8-10 years at no or low pay to go through med school, residency, and fellowship training.


There are always people at the bottom of their class. People who do poorly in Medical school, and are JUST able to pass and get their MD. There are also people who got moderate grades.

Remember, medicine is one of the highest paying professions out there (once you get into Gen Prac or administrative positions in a hospital). It has a significant greed draw. Significant enough, that people would go through all the hoops, just to get to it.

Now, as you mentioned that socialist countries are often better at delivery. (I'm not a socialist, remember this) Is not delivery a very critical part of heathcare system? Let's say, for the sake of arguement, that Cuban doctors are marginally worse than the American doctors in their ability to practice medicine. However, the delivery system, getting the service to the patient, is 2 steps better than American service (purely hypothetical). This would result in a higher quality healthcare system than America. Which is exactly what has been being discussed in this thread.

That a dictatorship, such as Cuba, can result in better services, sometimes. Which ties directly in with the arguement that Cuba's problems may be related more directly to the embargo, than with Cuba's government.

If instead of embargo, the USA tried to help Cuba become a more democratic nation. Through incentives, instead of punishment (carrot, instead of stick). It would probably turn out to be a really nice place.

Instead, it remains a dictatorship, very possibly, because America continues it's embargo. Which forces Castro to keep tight control, otherwise it would just collapse into chaos. Remember, when one person runs a country, things are done FAST. Problems are solved immediately (sometimes not to the liking of anybody except the dictator, i.e. shooting people). Which means, as long as Cuba remains under embargo, Castro will be forced to remain in power, so that the country doesn't fall apart.

A possible way to solve this problem, would be to propose a treaty with Castro. For each step towards democracy he takes, part of the embargo will be lifted. Once they are a democracy, with at least 2 parties, and checks and balances, similar to the USA...no more embargo. I say similar, because the USA is not perfect. Who knows, maybe democratic Cuba would find a better government than the USA? Purely hypothetical, of course.

Personally, I think the USA would do a heck of a lot better in international relations, if it used carrots more than sticks...Carrots with a cost, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...