Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/09/busin ... -rankings/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden are the world's happiest countries, according to the survey of 156 countries. Rwanda, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Benin and Togo -- all nations in Sub-Saharan Africa -- are the least satisfied with their lives, the report said.

The United States came in at number 17 in the world in terms of overall happiness, but it still lags behind Canada (6), Australia (10), Israel (11) the United Arab Emirates (14) and Mexico (16), according to the Earth Institute.

And, the Swedish health care system?

Fourth healthiest nation!!

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-te ... s-map.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

…..I’ve asked several Swedish health economists to share their thoughts about that question. They have spent their lives under a system in which most health care providers work directly for the government. Like economists in most other countries, they tend to be skeptical of large bureaucracies. So if extensive government involvement in health care is indeed a recipe for doom, they should have clear evidence of that by now.

Yet none of them voiced the kinds of complaints about recalcitrant bureaucrats and runaway health costs that invariably surface in similar conversations with American colleagues. Little wonder. The Swedish system performs superbly, and my Swedish colleagues cited evidence of that fact with obvious pride.

The United States spends more than $8,000 a person per year on health care, well more than twice what Sweden spends. Yet health outcomes are far better in Sweden along virtually every dimension. Its infant mortality rate, for example, was recently less than half that of the United States. And males aged 15 to 60 are almost twice as likely to die in any given year in the United States than in Sweden.

In fairness, those differences result partly from lifestyle. In Sweden, workers are more likely to commute by bicycle than by car, for example, and obesity is far less common. Absolute poverty and income inequality — both associated with adverse health outcomes — are also lower.

But when illness strikes, the Swedish health care system responds efficiently. Managers have exploited economies of scale by consolidating services into fewer but larger hospitals. The American system has also gone through consolidation, but, by contrast, boutique hospitals are also more common here — partly in response to demands from patients with very high-cost health plans. In large hospitals, CT scanners and other expensive diagnostic and treatment machines are in nearly constant use, versus only a few hours of weekly use in some small ones.

Larger hospitals with heavier patient flows also enable their staff to hone their skills through specialization and experience. If you are getting a knee replacement or coronary bypass surgery, you want teams that do scores of such procedures each month.

Doctors in the two countries also face different financial incentives. In the United States, under the fee-for-service model, they can bolster their incomes, often substantially, by prescribing additional tests and procedures. Most Swedish doctors, as salaried employees, have no comparable incentive.

Another important difference is that, unlike many American health insurance providers, the government groups that manage Swedish health care are nonprofit entities. Because their charge is to provide quality care for all citizens, they don’t face the same incentive to withhold care that for-profit organizations do.


And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know…..

Thank you Obamacare

Gil Dobie wrote:Thank you Obamacare

Greatest government program since the GI Bill. Don't thank Obama, thank Romney!!!

Cap'n Cat wrote: The United States came in at number 17 in the world in terms of overall happiness, but it still lags behind Canada (6), Australia (10), Israel (11) the United Arab Emirates (14) and Mexico (16), according to the Earth Institute.[/i]

Our bar is set much higher than any of those countries.

Hang in there Cappy. You still have two more strikes in this at-bat.

What's wrong with that??? Fox News can't cover it that's what's wrong with that! Doesn't fit in with their programing!

And this is the other reason Fox News won't cover it. The Republicans had at least 15 years to come up with a plan to address health care costs in this country. The potential for our current crisis became apparent in the early 90's but all the Republicans could agree to do was ignore it, invest in insurance and pharmaceutical companies and hope that the various military actions and National Security concerns would push health care down the list of important issues yet again.

Well guess what! You can only stall so long and the time limit on this one expired. What we got because of Republican stall tactics and\or pure negligence is the "Affordable Health Care Act" which is so vast and complicated and basically an over reaction because of the time and frustration involved to get action. Are there problems with the Affordable Health Care Act? Heck yes and some big ones too. But true to fashion, instead of trying to participate and fix the issues all the Republicans can do is spend 6 years trying to repeal it. What is it, 38 votes in the House so far?

Well, I guess I shouldn't be so harsh on the Republicans and should give them their due. Because of their actions (inaction is actually an action) we now have the Affordable Health Care Act. Funny thing is, it's because of the Republican that we have this so we should be thankful to them. 15 years later!!!

I saw another "happiest nations" ranking somewhere that had two of the Central American countries including El Salvador in the top 5. I was like, WTF?

By the way I must take issue with the list in this thread.... Mexico ranks #16 and the US ranks #17?

There should be a rule that in order to place ahead of another country in happiness, millions of your citizens should not be dying in the desert to get to the country you outrank.

CID1990 wrote:I saw another "happiest nations" ranking somewhere that had two of the Central American countries including El Salvador in the top 5. I was like, WTF?

By the way I must take issue with the list in this thread.... Mexico ranks #16 and the US ranks #17?

There should be a rule that in order to place ahead of another country in happiness, millions of your citizens should not be dying in the desert to get to the country you outrank.

That's the old Mexico of Ronald Reagan and Baldy's masturbatory dreams, CID. Get with it. Mexico is on the rise. Still, give me Sweden……

CAA Flagship wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote: The United States came in at number 17 in the world in terms of overall happiness, but it still lags behind Canada (6), Australia (10), Israel (11) the United Arab Emirates (14) and Mexico (16), according to the Earth Institute.[/i]

Our bar is set much higher than any of those countries.

Hang in there Cappy. You still have two more strikes in this at-bat.

You're right, Flaggy!

In your world…..

Cap'n Cat wrote:

CID1990 wrote:I saw another "happiest nations" ranking somewhere that had two of the Central American countries including El Salvador in the top 5. I was like, WTF?

By the way I must take issue with the list in this thread.... Mexico ranks #16 and the US ranks #17?

There should be a rule that in order to place ahead of another country in happiness, millions of your citizens should not be dying in the desert to get to the country you outrank.

That's the old Mexico of Ronald Reagan and Baldy's masturbatory dreams, CID. Get with it. Mexico is on the rise. Still, give me Sweden……

Judging from the picture you posted (which was very nice, BTW) it appears Sweden is having a Mexican invasion of their own

CID1990 wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:

That's the old Mexico of Ronald Reagan and Baldy's masturbatory dreams, CID. Get with it. Mexico is on the rise. Still, give me Sweden……

Judging from the picture you posted (which was very nice, BTW) it appears Sweden is having a Mexican invasion of their own

She's an exchange student from Spain.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

You had me at hello.

That right there is enough to make any man with a pulse want to be on the next plane to Sweden, REGARDLESS of their political leanings...

VictorG wrote:What's wrong with that??? Fox News can't cover it that's what's wrong with that! Doesn't fit in with their programing!

And this is the other reason Fox News won't cover it. The Republicans had at least 15 years to come up with a plan to address health care costs in this country. The potential for our current crisis became apparent in the early 90's but all the Republicans could agree to do was ignore it, invest in insurance and pharmaceutical companies and hope that the various military actions and National Security concerns would push health care down the list of important issues yet again.

Well guess what! You can only stall so long and the time limit on this one expired. What we got because of Republican stall tactics and\or pure negligence is the "Affordable Health Care Act" which is so vast and complicated and basically an over reaction because of the time and frustration involved to get action. Are there problems with the Affordable Health Care Act? Heck yes and some big ones too. But true to fashion, instead of trying to participate and fix the issues all the Republicans can do is spend 6 years trying to repeal it. What is it, 38 votes in the House so far?

Well, I guess I shouldn't be so harsh on the Republicans and should give them their due. Because of their actions (inaction is actually an action) we now have the Affordable Health Care Act. Funny thing is, it's because of the Republican that we have this so we should be thankful to them. 15 years later!!!

Dumbass, the Repubs tried a # of commonsense measure that were blocked over the years by donks. 2 were tort reform and allowing people in states to purchase insurance across state lines - that is people in states with expensive insurance to purchase it in states where it was far less expensive. But donks for years blocked both common sense measures that would have lowered costs.

BDKJMU wrote:

VictorG wrote:What's wrong with that??? Fox News can't cover it that's what's wrong with that! Doesn't fit in with their programing!

And this is the other reason Fox News won't cover it. The Republicans had at least 15 years to come up with a plan to address health care costs in this country. The potential for our current crisis became apparent in the early 90's but all the Republicans could agree to do was ignore it, invest in insurance and pharmaceutical companies and hope that the various military actions and National Security concerns would push health care down the list of important issues yet again.

Well guess what! You can only stall so long and the time limit on this one expired. What we got because of Republican stall tactics and\or pure negligence is the "Affordable Health Care Act" which is so vast and complicated and basically an over reaction because of the time and frustration involved to get action. Are there problems with the Affordable Health Care Act? Heck yes and some big ones too. But true to fashion, instead of trying to participate and fix the issues all the Republicans can do is spend 6 years trying to repeal it. What is it, 38 votes in the House so far?

Well, I guess I shouldn't be so harsh on the Republicans and should give them their due. Because of their actions (inaction is actually an action) we now have the Affordable Health Care Act. Funny thing is, it's because of the Republican that we have this so we should be thankful to them. 15 years later!!!

Dumbass, the Repubs tried a # of commonsense measure that were blocked over the years by donks. 2 were tort reform and allowing people in states to purchase insurance across state lines - that is people in states with expensive insurance to purchase it in states where it was far less expensive. But donks for years blocked both common sense measures that would have lowered costs.

Thanks for reminding me.....name calling is something the Repubs are good at.......do nothing for the problem approaches don't count....But, that's all the Repub's can put together!

VictorG wrote:What's wrong with that??? Fox News can't cover it that's what's wrong with that! Doesn't fit in with their programing!

And this is the other reason Fox News won't cover it. The Republicans had at least 15 years to come up with a plan to address health care costs in this country. The potential for our current crisis became apparent in the early 90's but all the Republicans could agree to do was ignore it, invest in insurance and pharmaceutical companies and hope that the various military actions and National Security concerns would push health care down the list of important issues yet again.

Well guess what! You can only stall so long and the time limit on this one expired. What we got because of Republican stall tactics and\or pure negligence is the "Affordable Health Care Act" which is so vast and complicated and basically an over reaction because of the time and frustration involved to get action. Are there problems with the Affordable Health Care Act? Heck yes and some big ones too. But true to fashion, instead of trying to participate and fix the issues all the Republicans can do is spend 6 years trying to repeal it. What is it, 38 votes in the House so far?

Well, I guess I shouldn't be so harsh on the Republicans and should give them their due. Because of their actions (inaction is actually an action) we now have the Affordable Health Care Act. Funny thing is, it's because of the Republican that we have this so we should be thankful to them. 15 years later!!!

The republicans couldn't come up with a solution, so we end up with an even WORSE alternative being crammed down our throats by the democrats, and somehow that's the REPUBLICANS' fault?

AZGrizFan wrote:

VictorG wrote:What's wrong with that??? Fox News can't cover it that's what's wrong with that! Doesn't fit in with their programing!

And this is the other reason Fox News won't cover it. The Republicans had at least 15 years to come up with a plan to address health care costs in this country. The potential for our current crisis became apparent in the early 90's but all the Republicans could agree to do was ignore it, invest in insurance and pharmaceutical companies and hope that the various military actions and National Security concerns would push health care down the list of important issues yet again.

Well guess what! You can only stall so long and the time limit on this one expired. What we got because of Republican stall tactics and\or pure negligence is the "Affordable Health Care Act" which is so vast and complicated and basically an over reaction because of the time and frustration involved to get action. Are there problems with the Affordable Health Care Act? Heck yes and some big ones too. But true to fashion, instead of trying to participate and fix the issues all the Republicans can do is spend 6 years trying to repeal it. What is it, 38 votes in the House so far?

Well, I guess I shouldn't be so harsh on the Republicans and should give them their due. Because of their actions (inaction is actually an action) we now have the Affordable Health Care Act. Funny thing is, it's because of the Republican that we have this so we should be thankful to them. 15 years later!!!

The republicans couldn't come up with a solution, so we end up with an even WORSE alternative being crammed down our throats by the democrats, and somehow that's the REPUBLICANS' fault?

Ironic isn't it!! But you have to admit...there is some truth in that rant!

Cap'n Cat wrote:http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/09/busin ... -rankings/





Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden are the world's happiest countries, according to the survey of 156 countries. Rwanda, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Benin and Togo -- all nations in Sub-Saharan Africa -- are the least satisfied with their lives, the report said.

The United States came in at number 17 in the world in terms of overall happiness, but it still lags behind Canada (6), Australia (10), Israel (11) the United Arab Emirates (14) and Mexico (16), according to the Earth Institute.

And, the Swedish health care system?

Fourth healthiest nation!!

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-te ... s-map.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

…..I’ve asked several Swedish health economists to share their thoughts about that question. They have spent their lives under a system in which most health care providers work directly for the government. Like economists in most other countries, they tend to be skeptical of large bureaucracies. So if extensive government involvement in health care is indeed a recipe for doom, they should have clear evidence of that by now.

Yet none of them voiced the kinds of complaints about recalcitrant bureaucrats and runaway health costs that invariably surface in similar conversations with American colleagues. Little wonder. The Swedish system performs superbly, and my Swedish colleagues cited evidence of that fact with obvious pride.

The United States spends more than $8,000 a person per year on health care, well more than twice what Sweden spends. Yet health outcomes are far better in Sweden along virtually every dimension. Its infant mortality rate, for example, was recently less than half that of the United States. And males aged 15 to 60 are almost twice as likely to die in any given year in the United States than in Sweden.

In fairness, those differences result partly from lifestyle. In Sweden, workers are more likely to commute by bicycle than by car, for example, and obesity is far less common. Absolute poverty and income inequality — both associated with adverse health outcomes — are also lower.

But when illness strikes, the Swedish health care system responds efficiently. Managers have exploited economies of scale by consolidating services into fewer but larger hospitals. The American system has also gone through consolidation, but, by contrast, boutique hospitals are also more common here — partly in response to demands from patients with very high-cost health plans. In large hospitals, CT scanners and other expensive diagnostic and treatment machines are in nearly constant use, versus only a few hours of weekly use in some small ones.

Larger hospitals with heavier patient flows also enable their staff to hone their skills through specialization and experience. If you are getting a knee replacement or coronary bypass surgery, you want teams that do scores of such procedures each month.

Doctors in the two countries also face different financial incentives. In the United States, under the fee-for-service model, they can bolster their incomes, often substantially, by prescribing additional tests and procedures. Most Swedish doctors, as salaried employees, have no comparable incentive.

Another important difference is that, unlike many American health insurance providers, the government groups that manage Swedish health care are nonprofit entities. Because their charge is to provide quality care for all citizens, they don’t face the same incentive to withhold care that for-profit organizations do.


And what's wrong with that? I'd like to know…..

If I could relocate today, I would. Awesome article cappy!

Picking and choosing quality of life stats is fun! Care to make comparisons of which health care system has better technology, better cancer survival, preventative care, dental care, and chronic disease care?

Speaking of infant mortality, want to guess which country has the most advanced neonatal ICUs in the world for premature births and other problems?

Pwns wrote:Picking and choosing quality of life stats is fun! Care to make comparisons of which health care system has better technology, better cancer survival, preventative care, dental care, and chronic disease care.

Speaking of infant mortality, want to guess which country has the most advanced neonatal ICUs in the world for premature births and other problems+

So why don't all of these factors add up to a longer life expectancy?

Grizalltheway wrote:

Pwns wrote:Picking and choosing quality of life stats is fun! Care to make comparisons of which health care system has better technology, better cancer survival, preventative care, dental care, and chronic disease care.

Speaking of infant mortality, want to guess which country has the most advanced neonatal ICUs in the world for premature births and other problems+

So why don't all of these factors add up to a longer life expectancy?

I don't know. How do rates of smoking, cardiovascular disease, and obesity in the US compare to Sweden? My guess is that we have a lot more.

Pwns wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
So why don't all of these factors add up to a longer life expectancy?

I don't know. How do rates of smoking, cardiovascular disease, and obesity in the US compare to Sweden? My guess is that we have a lot more.

Probably true.

Clearly the problem in the US isn't the quality of our technology, cancer care, preventative care, etc, it's the unequal access to those things that leads to lower overall outcomes than countries like Sweden.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Pwns wrote: I don't know. How do rates of smoking, cardiovascular disease, and obesity in the US compare to Sweden? My guess is that we have a lot more.

Probably true.

Clearly the problem in the US isn't the quality of our technology, cancer care, preventative care, etc, it's the unequal access to those things that leads to lower overall outcomes than countries like Sweden.

Like stress.

Pwns wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
So why don't all of these factors add up to a longer life expectancy?

I don't know. How do rates of smoking, cardiovascular disease, and obesity in the US compare to Sweden? My guess is that we have a lot more.

I don't know about smoking but they dip snüs by the bucketful

Cap'n Cat wrote:http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/09/busin ... -rankings/
Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden are the world's happiest countries, according to the survey of 156 countries.

And I'm 75% Norwegian and Danish so by association I'm much happier than those rat bastard Swedes. Hah!

I think that Socialism only works with a mostly homogenous population........would never work here even if everyone wanted it.

mainejeff wrote:I think that Socialism only works with a mostly homogenous population........would never work here even if everyone wanted it.

racists