"France is healthcare leader, US comes dead last: study"

[egslim]

So rather than a headline "US improves 4%", the gist is "US drops to #19". Out of 140 countries on this planet. Seems pretty distorted to me.

That depends on the standards you hold your country to. The majority of those 140 are developing or plain undeveloped nations.

In my opinion a first world country should always outperform third world competitors in a quality of life comparisson. Which means the only meaningful comparisson is with other first world countries, of which there are far fewer.

 

[fls]

Tell us about the Doctor shortage in Canada.

It is difficult to get health-care when there are not enough doctors, would you not agree?

I agree.

Of course Canada wants the US to have social health-care, then they would not be losing so many doctors to the better system in the US.

In 2006, 122 physicians moved to the US which is 0.2% of all practising Canadian physicians.

Linda

 

[Beerina]

Linky

But we have teh best healthcare in the world!!

Clearly the solution is to let the free market take its course and get rid of government regulations like all those countries did...

They do not contribute proportionally as much to advancing medical technology as the US does.

If you were to carve them and the US off into their own parallel worlds, alone, the US would, over the years, have fewer and fewer deaths, in spite of a lack of government health care, due to it pulling away in medical technology, over "free" health care nations like those in Europe.

Currently, it looks like they're "better", because the world shares medical tech. But the world, including their own nations, would be living better lives then they are now, even with "awful, pay yourself insurance".

So the choice they offer is fraudulent. They should be jailed for increasing the death rate, all the while they claim they are decreasing it.

 

[Beerina]

How is this adjusting for the fact that the bulk of such "preventable death decline" in the US occurred in the 19 and 20th centuries? Can anyone speak to the amount of "preventable death" as an absolute proportion rather than as a rate? It would seem to me that the law of diminishing returns is going to make it very hard for a country like the US to see further declines, while others may still have a way to go.

That's very interesting. It is comparing apples to oranges. It's like saying, "See, China and India's economies are growing at 10% a year! The US's is 2-4%, if they're lucky! Why does the US suck so much?!?!?"

 

[Billdave2]

I have an English friend who lives here in the states now. He used to tell me how terrible our health care system was. Then his Dad had a heartattack. He need angioplasty and the waiting list was two years long (he did not get to chose his doctor). He was told to take it easy and hope he didn't have another heart attack before he could get the angioplasty. In the US it would have cost more, but he would have had it within weeks of the heart attack. Last year my friends mother started developing Alzheimers. The NHS does not provide any medications for this. In Febuary, she went in to the hospital for some tests on another condition. She was taken to the wrong part of the hospital, misdiagnosed, and died that night because she was given the wrong medicine. The reason? There were not enough qualified doctors and the ones who were there are overworked. He has changed his tune.

When these same studies are done on with out including cost, the USA ranks number one (source: John Stossel's Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know Is Wrong). People come to the US to get health care you can't get anywhere else. When was the last time you heard of someone leaving the US to get Healthcare?

 

[Darat]

I have an English friend who lives here in the states now. He used to tell me how terrible our health care system was. Then his Dad had a heartattack. He need angioplasty and the waiting list was two years long (he did not get to chose his doctor).

...snip...

Don't believe your anecdote that there was a two year waiting list.

...snip...

Last year my friends mother started developing Alzheimers. The NHS does not provide any medications for this.

...snip...

Not true.

...snip...

In Febuary, she went in to the hospital for some tests on another condition. She was taken to the wrong part of the hospital, misdiagnosed, and died that night because she was given the wrong medicine. The reason? There were not enough qualified doctors and the ones who were there are overworked. He has changed his tune.

...snip...

Incompetence is present in all health-care systems, it's a human trait so I don't know what this has to do with what I take is meant to be against universal health-care?

 

[fls]

They do not contribute proportionally as much to advancing medical technology as the US does.

If you were to carve them and the US off into their own parallel worlds, alone, the US would, over the years, have fewer and fewer deaths, in spite of a lack of government health care, due to it pulling away in medical technology, over "free" health care nations like those in Europe.

Putting aside the fact that other countries and their scientists, physicians and entrepreneurs are invested in advancing health, just like the US, the US can't pull ahead in health and reduced mortality. Health status is closely tied to socio-economic status. And the US distributes health care on the basis of ability to pay, rather than need. This means that excess health care is given to people who don't need it. And this is doubly so for new technologies, which tend to be expensive. So the new technologies will be used where they can do the least good, making it difficult, if not impossible, for the US to catch up on the basis of differences in technology. In addition, new technologies (of the type pursued by entrepreneurs) make a difference in lifespan that can be measured in days, if not hours, while the differences made by reducing the influence of socioeconomic status are measured in years. Even if we bought in to your claim that technologic advances falter under universal systems (a claim for which you've provided no supporting evidence), technological advances provide too little incremental benefit and are too maldistributed under the US system to allow it to inch its way into the lead.

Linda

 

[casebro]

But so much of the high-tech medical wizardry does so little for the mortality rate.

Oh, I'm glad I've had MRIs for my back, but sciatica doesn't kill. Nor torn ligaments, incidentalomas,...

Half of heart attacks are sudden death, the cancer fatalities run to 40%. While studies give data representing significant drops in the 'mortality rate', our average life spans are barely increasing for all the high tech wizardry.

I guess we've reached the point of diminishing returns since antibiotics were utilized. Until a true paradigm shift comes along, I don't think that quibbling over the financial system is worth all the hot air.

Most of the un-insured are healthy young adults. The folks who need insurance the least. Old folks are covered by Medicare, youngsters by AFDC, or other welfare systems. It seems a non-issue to me. The few cash customers are truly gouged by the system- I think to make some kind of bigger tax deductions or offsets of some kind when the those cash customers are unable to pay. It makes me wonder if there isn't a fundamental flaw, not related to who pays, but method of accounting? Or litigiousness? that whose signature on the check won't matter.

 

[fls]

I have an English friend who lives here in the states now. He used to tell me how terrible our health care system was. Then his Dad had a heartattack. He need angioplasty and the waiting list was two years long (he did not get to chose his doctor).

Don't know what year it was for the dad of your friend, but the median wait time for elective angioplasty in the UK was 55 days in 2005, from a peak of 77 the year before (from this). That's nowhere near 730 days.

Last year my friends mother started developing Alzheimers. The NHS does not provide any medications for this.

As far as I can tell, the NHS does not pay for these meds to be used in early stages as it is not cost-effective. They are available if you wish to pay for them. The same thing happens in the US, though.

When these same studies are done on with out including cost, the USA ranks number one (source: John Stossel's Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know Is Wrong).

Really? What page number? Because none of the measures we are talking about are related to cost, so your statement doesn't make sense.

People come to the US to get health care you can't get anywhere else. When was the last time you heard of someone leaving the US to get Healthcare?

Are you serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-medical-tourism_goeringmar28,0,4555735.story

Linda

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

When was the last time you heard of someone leaving the US o get Healthcare?

Linda got it first, but I've been hearing about it for years. Mostly it's people going for surgery that would cost $100,000 in the U.S. getting it for $10,000 in India or Thailand.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It seems a non-issue to me.

Not if you want to control a population through taxation.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Tell us about the Doctor shortage in Canada.


It is difficult to get health-care when there are not enough doctors, would you not agree?



Of course Canada wants the US to have social health-care, then they would not be losing so many doctors to the better system in the US.

What I said.

 

[Billdave2]

Don't believe your anecdote that there was a two year waiting list.



Not true.



Incompetence is present in all health-care systems, it's a human trait so I don't know what this has to do with what I take is meant to be against universal health-care?

So I guess the two years my friends father carried his nitroglycerine pills and had to be especially careful that he did not overexert himself was all in his head? This is hardly anecdotal, if there is a waiting list then everyone on the list is an example. Even if you take Linda's 55-77 days as the true waiting time, that is radically different than 2-5 days that you would see in the US, wouldn't you say? I think having to wait even two months for a surgery that may mean the difference between life and death is outrageous.

My friends mother was told that the only way she could get Alzheimer's meds was if she bought them herself. I would call that not providing the meds. It couldn't be that her condition was not severe enough either, she couldn't recognize her own children and would walk into closets in her own home. I know you are going to say that her condition was so bad that they wouldn't provide the meds because they wouldn't do any good, but she never qualified from the time she first started showing symptoms til her death. yes her death could be considered anecdotal, but when you consider the number of problems this one family has had, it stops being individual data points and becomes a trend. As I said my friend used to think that the NHS was great when he lived in England. He was young and healthy and his parents were in good health too. He had very little actual experiance with it. When his parents got older he started to see the flaws.

 

[Billdave2]

Don't know what year it was for the dad of your friend, but the median wait time for elective angioplasty in the UK was 55 days in 2005, from a peak of 77 the year before (from this). That's nowhere near 730 days.



As far as I can tell, the NHS does not pay for these meds to be used in early stages as it is not cost-effective. They are available if you wish to pay for them. The same thing happens in the US, though.



Really? What page number? Because none of the measures we are talking about are related to cost, so your statement doesn't make sense.



Are you serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_tourism
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-medical-tourism_goeringmar28,0,4555735.story

Linda

At the risk of repeating myself, even 55-77 days is inexcusable wait for a procedure of this type. In the US this would be done as soon as the patient recovered enough from the heart attack to allow the surgery.

Yes at first they told her she couldn't have the meds because her symptoms were to mild. When they got worse she was told it's was because they were too bad and the meds wouldn't help. She apparantly didn't see the doctor on the one day her symptoms were just right.

I am sorry for the confusion, I was refering to the WHO health studies not the ones in the OP. In their study satisfaction with cost is a major part of the rating. If this is taken out, the US moves to number one. I have given you the source, I can even tell you the chapter (the one on medical myths), I don't see how giving you the page numbers will help you find it that much easier.

 

[Billdave2]

Linda got it first, but I've been hearing about it for years. Mostly it's people going for surgery that would cost $100,000 in the U.S. getting it for $10,000 in India or Thailand.

Surgery is like sushi, cheap is not the way you want to go. I personally would be very skeptical of discount operations. I will stick with Dr. Hibbert and let others see Dr. Nick (Hi Everybody!).

 

[Darat]

So I guess the two years my friends father carried his nitroglycerine pills and had to be especially careful that he did not overexert himself was all in his head?

I have already stated that I do not believe your anecdote - just repeating it won't change my mind.

This is hardly anecdotal, if there is a waiting list then everyone on the list is an example. Even if you take Linda's 55-77 days as the true waiting time, that is radically different than 2-5 days that you would see in the US, wouldn't you say?

So everyone in the USA just has to wait 2-5 days for their operation - that is quite an incredible claim - any evidence to support it?

I think having to wait even two months for a surgery that may mean the difference between life and death is outrageous.

So do I - thankfully that rarely happens in the UK.

My friends mother was told that the only way she could get Alzheimer's meds was if she bought them herself.

...snip...

Another anecdote I don't believe.

Would you like to hear the anecdote about my mother, an old age pensioner undergoing treatment for cancer of the larynx? All the surgery, radiotherapy, drugs, hospital and at home care and how she is currently undergoing dental work to replace all her teeth with tens of thousands of pounds worth of implants? See the problem with swapping anecdotes yet?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Are you looking at the study?

Comparison of rankings based on disability adjusted life expectancy and standardised death rates (per 100 000; ages 0-74) from mortality amenable to health care


Now depending on exactly how this study defines both "disability adjusted life expectancy" and "mortality amenable to health care" we can derived a great number of statistics.

How is trying to live forever a useful measure or metric, I wonder?

My aunt spent the last four years of her life a prisoner in her own body. She often didn't know who she was, or her own brother and sister. Is this the aim of health care? Is this humane?

The metric of accessibilty to "health care" seems to overlook that one's health is significantly influenced by one's own choices, and one's own interest in taking actions and responsiblity for one's health maintenance. How is that the state's responsiblity?

*lights a cigarette and sips some gin*

DR

 

[volatile]

The metric of accessibilty to "health care" seems to overlook that one's health is significantly influenced by one's own choices, and one's own interest in taking actions and responsiblity for one's health maintenance. How is that the state's responsiblity?

This seems to miss the rather glaring issue that people on low incomes are not in a position to be able to make such choices (if you mean that in the sense of choosing when and where to seek treatment, and which treatments to choose) in the first place. That's the tyranny of the US system.

ETA: It has occurred to me that you might mean that people in bad health have chosen to be that way through lifestyle selections. Whilst that might be so in the minority of cases, it is most certainly not case for the majority of people who require healthcare at some point in their lives (i.e. everyone).

 

[Darth Rotor]

This seems to miss the rather glaring issue that people on low incomes are not in a position to be able to make such choices (if you mean that in the sense of choosing when and where to seek treatment, and which treatments to choose) in the first place.

Not treatments, decisions on smoking, drinking, eating garbage, feeding your kids crap, eating more than you need, not exercising, etc. One can't control, for example, whether or not one develops cancer early, one can only hedge the bets.

That's the tyranny of the US system.

For fox ache, enough with the emotive language already.

ETA: It has occurred to me that you might mean that people in bad health have chosen to be that way through lifestyle selections.

Yes and no. You don't have to eat junk food. If you prioritize your health as something you maintain, rather than take for granted, you tend to be healthier, and less in need of care. Of course, getting a flu shot, or the usual innoculations, is a good way to bias your odds in your favor, etc. Basic cleanliness likewise.

My mom and dad are life long examples of that approach to life: take an active role and interest in your health maintenance.

DR

 

[volatile]

Yes and no. You don't have to eat junk food. If you prioritize your health as something you maintain, rather than take for granted, you tend to be healthier, and less in need of care. Of course, getting a flu shot, or the usual innoculations, is a good way to bias your odds in your favor, etc. Basic cleanliness likewise.

My mom and dad are life long examples of that approach to life: take an active role and interest in your health maintenance.

DR

In this model, you fail to account for accidents and emergencies, most mental illnesses, genetic diseases, genetic pre-dispositions, viral and bacterial infections and, I'd guess, the more-than-overwhelming majority of medical treatments.

People don't choose to get MS, or ME, or depression. They don't choose to get strep throat, staph infections, glandular fever or appendicitis. They don't choose to get congenital heart defects. In short, people's choices do not relate to their need for healthcare (or otherwise) in nearly all cases.

Assigning individual responsibility for all health care is a terrible, terrible idea (practically and ethically) for precisely these reasons. The metric of access which you decry is certainly the most sensible one in light of this, because it measures how available health care is in general.