America's Health Care System Compared to Other Nations

[PatrioticTriumph]

The American public seems to be fairly indifferent, uninformed and isolated from the state of public health in the rest of the developed world. This causes many to have an uneducated, distorted and ethnocentric view on health care systems in other countries. First, I would like to address some important information to consider;

There's been many comparisons between our health care system and that of the UK and Canada, the comparison is often irrelevant and these aren't the only nations with universal health care.

Universal health care is implemented in ALL industrialized nations, with the only exception of the U.S.

Thus, a better comparison would be that of our nation's to the rest of the developed world. First, it should be made clear that the U.S. does very well in SPECIALIZED medical treatment performance (which is useless unless you have coverage). Contrary to this, the U.S. ranks very poorly as a developed nation in it's overall state of public health.

According to the United Nations, the U.S. is ranked #38 in average life expectancy. The top 20 nations with the highest average life expectancy ALL have universal health care available to it's citizens;

1 Japan
2 Hong Kong ( PRC)
3 Iceland
4 Switzerland
5 Australia
6 Spain
7 Sweden
8 Israel
9 Macau ( PRC)
10 France (metropolitan)
11 Canada
12 Italy
13 New Zealand
14 Norway
15 Singapore
16 Austria
17 Netherlands
18 Martinique ( France)
19 Greece
20 Belgium

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf

According to the 2008 CIA Factbook (which takes into account 223 countries rather than the UN's 195) The U.S. is ranked #50 in average life expectancy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2102.html


According to a report from the World Health Organization (the UN's authority on international public health), the U.S. health care system is ranked #37 in quality of health care. The U.S.'s ranking places it under nations like Costa Rica, Chile, and Columbia.

The WHO report compared factors such as overall public health, distribution of medical treatment and responsiveness.

www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html


Note: Majority of western countries have a private insurance option that runs parallel to a public health service.

With our advancements in specialized medical treatment and wealth we should be a healthy nation, but this is not the case thanks to our backwards outdated health care system.

A common misconception coming from uneducated confused neo-cons is that medical innovation would suffer under universal health care. Our medical innovation is not a product of our private health care system, rather it is a product of our nation's private business market, and government/pharmaceutical co. funded medical research...

Private insurance companies do not fund this research, so why would medical innovation suffer under universal health care? The issue at hand is obviously not medical innovation, the issue at hand is clearly health care providers who are not motivated to provide proper and fair coverage to their clients. We can have all the most innovative and cutting-edge medical treatments in the world but this won't change America's poor public health because citizens don't all have access to these treatments. The poor state of our public health as a nation is the product of our private health care system.

It's amazes me that we as Americans have a plethora of social services; social security, law enforcement, emergency medical response, fire protection, public education, public roads and transportation. Yet we fail to provide all of our citizens with the most basic of needs, medical care.

The nonsensical neo-con argument that universal health care is a step towards complete socialism is insanely absurd. Universal health care is no different than these other social services I have listed, and would only be a step in joining the rest of the developed world in improving our nation's overall public health (which as you can see is statistically below par).

So there you go, the issue at hand is clearly the poor state of our nation's public health. Take a look at other nations that all have excellent public health. The solution? Provide proper and fair coverage. The counter-arguments that medical innovation will suffer is blatantly irrelevant as medical research is not funded by private insurance companies. And the nonsense about universal health care being a giant leap towards complete socialism is also irrelevant seeing as we already provide many similar social services to our citizens.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The nonsensical neo-con argument that universal health care is a step towards complete socialism is insanely absurd. Universal health care is no different than these other social services I have listed, and would only be a step in joining the rest of the developed world in improving our nation's overall public health.

....And, that's only the opinion of someone who's BEEN there!!!!

***

(It doesn't get anymore-entertaining, than THIS!!!!!!)

What Comedy Central showed......AND, the Extended-Version!!!!​

 

[PLC1]

The American public seems to be fairly indifferent, uninformed and isolated from the state of public health in the rest of the developed world. This causes many to have an uneducated, distorted and ethnocentric view on health care systems in other countries. First, I would like to address some important information to consider;

There's been many comparisons between our health care system and that of the UK and Canada, the comparison is often irrelevant and these aren't the only nations with universal health care.

Universal health care is implemented in ALL industrialized nations, with the only exception of the U.S.

Thus, a better comparison would be that of our nation's to the rest of the developed world. First, it should be made clear that the U.S. does very well in SPECIALIZED medical treatment performance (which is useless unless you have coverage). Contrary to this, the U.S. ranks very poorly as a developed nation in it's overall state of public health.

According to the United Nations, the U.S. is ranked #38 in average life expectancy. The top 20 nations with the highest average life expectancy ALL have universal health care available to it's citizens;

1 Japan
2 Hong Kong ( PRC)
3 Iceland
4 Switzerland
5 Australia
6 Spain
7 Sweden
8 Israel
9 Macau ( PRC)
10 France (metropolitan)
11 Canada
12 Italy
13 New Zealand
14 Norway
15 Singapore
16 Austria
17 Netherlands
18 Martinique ( France)
19 Greece
20 Belgium

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf

According to the 2008 CIA Factbook (which takes into account 223 countries rather than the UN's 195) The U.S. is ranked #50 in average life expectancy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2102.html


According to a report from the World Health Organization (the UN's authority on international public health), the U.S. health care system is ranked #37 in quality of health care. The U.S.'s ranking places it under nations like Costa Rica, Chile, and Columbia.

The WHO report compared factors such as overall public health, distribution of medical treatment and responsiveness.

www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html


Note: Majority of western countries have a private insurance option that runs parallel to a public health service.

With our advancements in specialized medical treatment and wealth we should be a healthy nation, but this is not the case thanks to our backwards outdated health care system.

A common misconception coming from uneducated confused neo-cons is that medical innovation would suffer under universal health care. Our medical innovation is not a product of our private health care system, rather it is a product of our nation's private business market, and government/pharmaceutical co. funded medical research...

Private insurance companies do not fund this research, so why would medical innovation suffer under universal health care? The issue at hand is obviously not medical innovation, the issue at hand is clearly health care providers who are not motivated to provide proper and fair coverage to their clients. We can have all the most innovative and cutting-edge medical treatments in the world but this won't change America's poor public health because citizens don't all have access to these treatments. The poor state of our public health as a nation is the product of our private health care system.

It's amazes me that we as Americans have a plethora of social services; social security, law enforcement, emergency medical response, fire protection, public education, public roads and transportation. Yet we fail to provide all of our citizens with the most basic of needs, medical care.

The nonsensical neo-con argument that universal health care is a step towards complete socialism is insanely absurd. Universal health care is no different than these other social services I have listed, and would only be a step in joining the rest of the developed world in improving our nation's overall public health (which as you can see is statistically below par).

So there you go, the issue at hand is clearly the poor state of our nation's public health. Take a look at other nations that all have excellent public health. The solution? Provide proper and fair coverage. The counter-arguments that medical innovation will suffer is blatantly irrelevant as medical research is not funded by private insurance companies. And the nonsense about universal health care being a giant leap towards complete socialism is also irrelevant seeing as we already provide many similar social services to our citizens.

Having seen a number of threads on this same subject, i can tell you what the counter arguments are going to be:

WHO favors socialized medicine.
Other nations aren't doing as well as they say. The data are skewed.We have the best health care system in the world because I say so.
Busloads of Canadians are coming to the US for health care that they can't get in Canada. (we saw commercials made of them during the "Hillarycare" debates, so we know they're coming.)
We're subsidizing other nations' health are by funding research.
The countries with "socialized medicine" are really spending a lot more than they say. We can't afford to have such a system, because that 10 or 11% of the GDP, as opposed to our 15%, is a phonied up figure.
There is no connection between life expectancy and quality of medical care. The problem is demographics, especially all of the illegal aliens we have.
The Constitution doesn't allow our government to have a national health care plan.

OK, no need to post any of the above counter arguments. We've all heard them before.

And, we all know that our health care system is seriously in need of an overhaul. It doesn't look like the Congress is going to be able to agree on anything workable this time around, so until the next time someone tries to fix the system we currently have, there is only one conclusion:

We're screwed.

 

[Dr.Who]

Those counter arguments tend to be true. And we do have the best in the world because we get better results in actually curing diseases, like cancer, and coming up with new innovative treatments that will be tomorrows standard care.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Those counter arguments tend to be true.

Ah, yes....those good ol' "conservative"-Absolutes.


​

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, no need to post any of the above counter arguments. We've all heard them before.

By that same token, there is no need to post anything from the OP, we've heard all that same drivel before too.

Quick note, the fallacy of non causa pro causa: The US life expectancy is below that of other nations with universal healthcare.

The majority of health problems in America are caused by lethargic lifestyles and poor diets, not a lack of access to healthcare.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Quick note, the fallacy of non causa pro causa: The US life expectancy is below that of other nations with universal healthcare.

The majority of health problems in America are caused by lethargic lifestyles and poor diets, not a lack of access to healthcare.

YEAH!!

WE'RE #46!! WE'RE #46!! WE'RE #46!!


Whatta GREAT marketing-opportunity!!!!

MINI-TREADMILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
​

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Those counter arguments tend to be true. And we do have the best in the world because we get better results in actually curing diseases, like cancer, and coming up with new innovative treatments that will be tomorrows standard care.

Look I cured Cancer! yay! ....Sorry you can't afford to have the treatment, but its nice to know we could cure you if we wanted right?

 

[top gun]

The American public seems to be fairly indifferent, uninformed and isolated from the state of public health in the rest of the developed world. This causes many to have an uneducated, distorted and ethnocentric view on health care systems in other countries. First, I would like to address some important information to consider;

There's been many comparisons between our health care system and that of the UK and Canada, the comparison is often irrelevant and these aren't the only nations with universal health care.

Universal health care is implemented in ALL industrialized nations, with the only exception of the U.S.

Thus, a better comparison would be that of our nation's to the rest of the developed world. First, it should be made clear that the U.S. does very well in SPECIALIZED medical treatment performance (which is useless unless you have coverage). Contrary to this, the U.S. ranks very poorly as a developed nation in it's overall state of public health.

According to the United Nations, the U.S. is ranked #38 in average life expectancy. The top 20 nations with the highest average life expectancy ALL have universal health care available to it's citizens;

1 Japan
2 Hong Kong ( PRC)
3 Iceland
4 Switzerland
5 Australia
6 Spain
7 Sweden
8 Israel
9 Macau ( PRC)
10 France (metropolitan)
11 Canada
12 Italy
13 New Zealand
14 Norway
15 Singapore
16 Austria
17 Netherlands
18 Martinique ( France)
19 Greece
20 Belgium

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/WPP2006_Highlights_rev.pdf

According to the 2008 CIA Factbook (which takes into account 223 countries rather than the UN's 195) The U.S. is ranked #50 in average life expectancy.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2102.html


According to a report from the World Health Organization (the UN's authority on international public health), the U.S. health care system is ranked #37 in quality of health care. The U.S.'s ranking places it under nations like Costa Rica, Chile, and Columbia.

The WHO report compared factors such as overall public health, distribution of medical treatment and responsiveness.

www.who.int/entity/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

http://www.who.int/whr/2000/media_centre/press_release/en/index.html


Note: Majority of western countries have a private insurance option that runs parallel to a public health service.

With our advancements in specialized medical treatment and wealth we should be a healthy nation, but this is not the case thanks to our backwards outdated health care system.

A common misconception coming from uneducated confused neo-cons is that medical innovation would suffer under universal health care. Our medical innovation is not a product of our private health care system, rather it is a product of our nation's private business market, and government/pharmaceutical co. funded medical research...

Private insurance companies do not fund this research, so why would medical innovation suffer under universal health care? The issue at hand is obviously not medical innovation, the issue at hand is clearly health care providers who are not motivated to provide proper and fair coverage to their clients. We can have all the most innovative and cutting-edge medical treatments in the world but this won't change America's poor public health because citizens don't all have access to these treatments. The poor state of our public health as a nation is the product of our private health care system.

It's amazes me that we as Americans have a plethora of social services; social security, law enforcement, emergency medical response, fire protection, public education, public roads and transportation. Yet we fail to provide all of our citizens with the most basic of needs, medical care.

The nonsensical neo-con argument that universal health care is a step towards complete socialism is insanely absurd. Universal health care is no different than these other social services I have listed, and would only be a step in joining the rest of the developed world in improving our nation's overall public health (which as you can see is statistically below par).

So there you go, the issue at hand is clearly the poor state of our nation's public health. Take a look at other nations that all have excellent public health. The solution? Provide proper and fair coverage. The counter-arguments that medical innovation will suffer is blatantly irrelevant as medical research is not funded by private insurance companies. And the nonsense about universal health care being a giant leap towards complete socialism is also irrelevant seeing as we already provide many similar social services to our citizens.

Excellent post with tons of documentation PatrioticTriumph.

What you'll find if you stay with us (and I surly hope you will as we need as many clear thinkers as possible) is that the gobbledygook the Conservatives will give denying your facts is really just a smoke screen because they already know everything you posted is 100% true.

They simply don't want any change that will cover almost every American, eliminate the denial of coverage for a preexisting condition or eliminate the caps now used to deny needed treatments.

You could show that America was dead last with it's current system and Americans could have only half the lifespan of everyone else and they'd still line up and say... no to everything.

 

[PLC1]

Oh, I forgot one: Health care will be rationed if we have a universal coverage plan, as opposed to the unlimited health care we get now.

Maybe we could number them, so, instead of repeating the same arguments (all of them fully shot full of holes by now), we could simply post the numbers.

 

[Dr.Who]

Look I cured Cancer! yay! ....Sorry you can't afford to have the treatment, but its nice to know we could cure you if we wanted right?

Really? Which American does not have access to cancer treatments? Answer: none. Every single American has access to cancer treatments at the very least when they enroll in Medicaid. The number of Americans on Medicaid is similar to the number of people in other countries who have gov offered health care and are in similar economic straits.

 

[Dr.Who]

Oh, I forgot one: Health care will be rationed if we have a universal coverage plan, as opposed to the unlimited health care we get now.

Maybe we could number them, so, instead of repeating the same arguments (all of them fully shot full of holes by now), we could simply post the numbers.

Actually under universal care health care will be rationed for all whereas now it is offered to the poor under medicaid and they get timely and relatively good treatment. The limits on care in other countries really is more restrictive than the limits we live under. The major difference is that we reward productivity which is good for the whole economy and a rising tide raises all ships.

 

[PLC1]

Actually under universal care health care will be rationed for all whereas now it is offered to the poor under medicaid and they get timely and relatively good treatment. The limits on care in other countries really is more restrictive than the limits we live under. The major difference is that we reward productivity which is good for the whole economy and a rising tide raises all ships.

The tiny little downside to what you're saying about everyone having access to health care is this:

If you have nothing to lose, then you can get Medicaid to pay for care. If you do, then you have to lose it before you can get that government charity.

If you suspect you might have a problem, then your choice is to go and find out, and maybe lose everything you have, or just hope that it is nothing to worry about.
Say, for example, you're a single mom with a job that pays the bills and a house with some equity. Your child has some worrisome symptoms that could be leukemia, or maybe not. Maye you're the one who might have a problem, but the time it takes to find out for sure is likely to lose you your job. Do you go to the doctor, or hope he gets better and it isn't anything serious? A lot of people do the latter, quite often until it is too late. Someone posted a whole lot of examples of that very thing (Top gun, I think it was, maybe not)


It seems to me we would be better off with fewer people having to depend on welfare.

 

[Dr.Who]

The tiny little downside to what you're saying about everyone having access to health care is this:

If you have nothing to lose, then you can get Medicaid to pay for care. If you do, then you have to lose it before you can get that government charity.

Yes you are right. And that is the way it should be. before one goes on the government dole and allows the politicians to coerce the rest of the citizenry to pay for ones care one should actually have used ones own resources. That is the way the system is set up now for good reason.

If you suspect you might have a problem, then your choice is to go and find out, and maybe lose everything you have, or just hope that it is nothing to worry about.

yes if you suspect you have a problem you should go and get it checked out. In fact you should have a physical periodically even if you do not suspect you have a problem. In a country where the cost of a doctors appointment is about the cost of two pairs of Nikes that is not unreasonable. But for that tiny percent for whom it is they do have other options. There are free clinics, university teaching centers and the use of charity. I don't think there is a city in this country where a poor person who could not afford a doctors visit could not find a church or neighbor to pay for a doctors visit. Or more simply to appeal to a doctors oath to treat some patients for no charge.

Say, for example, you're a single mom with a job that pays the bills and a house with some equity. Your child has some worrisome symptoms that could be leukemia, or maybe not. Maye you're the one who might have a problem, but the time it takes to find out for sure is likely to lose you your job. Do you go to the doctor, or hope he gets better and it isn't anything serious? A lot of people do the latter, quite often until it is too late. Someone posted a whole lot of examples of that very thing (Top gun, I think it was, maybe not)

Yes the working mother with a home (and 46% of poor people do own homes) should see a doctor. It would be an odd day in which she lost her job because she took her son to the doctor. After all the labor department does mandate that she has days off.

Did someone post a lot of examples of people who had to make a choice between a check up and a job? No he did not. But someone posted a study in which people delayed getting a checkup for un-named reasons while uninsured and suffered consequences. Then again as many insured people delay treatment for un-named reasons and suffer the consequences.

It seems to me we would be better off with fewer people having to depend on welfare.

I agree. We should not do things that enable welfare and we should not do things that discourage productivity. The proposed health care plan will raise the cost of health care for all and in the end this will hurt the working poor the most; just as all economic hardships hurt these people the most.

What will universal health care bring? "The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)"
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

The poor in this country are doing very well compared to the average citizens on many other countries that are held up for comparison. Here are some stats on those poor that we are supposed to believe cannot afford a check up:

From the US census:

"Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians."

There are some poor who are worse off than the average poor. But they already do qualify for medicaid.

 

[PLC1]

Yes you are right. And that is the way it should be. before one goes on the government dole and allows the politicians to coerce the rest of the citizenry to pay for ones care one should actually have used ones own resources. That is the way the system is set up now for good reason.


yes if you suspect you have a problem you should go and get it checked out. In fact you should have a physical periodically even if you do not suspect you have a problem. In a country where the cost of a doctors appointment is about the cost of two pairs of Nikes that is not unreasonable. But for that tiny percent for whom it is they do have other options. There are free clinics, university teaching centers and the use of charity. I don't think there is a city in this country where a poor person who could not afford a doctors visit could not find a church or neighbor to pay for a doctors visit. Or more simply to appeal to a doctors oath to treat some patients for no charge.



Yes the working mother with a home (and 46% of poor people do own homes) should see a doctor. It would be an odd day in which she lost her job because she took her son to the doctor. After all the labor department does mandate that she has days off.

Did someone post a lot of examples of people who had to make a choice between a check up and a job? No he did not. But someone posted a study in which people delayed getting a checkup for un-named reasons while uninsured and suffered consequences. Then again as many insured people delay treatment for un-named reasons and suffer the consequences.



I agree. We should not do things that enable welfare and we should not do things that discourage productivity. The proposed health care plan will raise the cost of health care for all and in the end this will hurt the working poor the most; just as all economic hardships hurt these people the most.

What will universal health care bring? "The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)"
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

The poor in this country are doing very well compared to the average citizens on many other countries that are held up for comparison. Here are some stats on those poor that we are supposed to believe cannot afford a check up:

From the US census:

"Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians."

There are some poor who are worse off than the average poor. But they already do qualify for medicaid.

Yes, most of our poor are better off than the poor of the third world countries. We have a lot more of them than the European nations do, but they aren't so bad off overall. As for access to medical care, yes, the very poor do have access through government sponsored "public options."

It is the working families who aren't fortunate enough to be working for an employer who provides insurance who have to make the choice between health and continued financial well being. It is the family whose breadwinner has been laid off who risks losing savings, retirement, equity in order to obtain medical care. If they're 30 or so, they can make it back, but the older set doesn't have time to re establish a retirement fund.

What we need is neither the current system, nor what Congress is debating currently. What we do need is a catastrophic care package that covers everyone, but requires everyone to pay for ordinary and affordable care. What we need is a national insurance policy that relies on the marketplace to ensure that people make an effort to keep costs under control, but will pay when those costs become unmanageable. If, for example, everyone paid for their own care up to, say for example, 10% of their income, that would control costs by encouraging shopping around and wise decisions, yet no one would have to choose between physical and financial well being.

Such a system would lift the burden of providing insurance from the shoulders of employers, which would improve the bottom line and raise salaries as well. It would make it far easier to ditch the corporate world and establish a small business. It would help keep that 2.5 trillion dollar health care bill from becoming 3 trillion, then 4, until even the middle class would be priced our of the market.

Isn't it too bad that partisan politics is taking the place of rational debate about how to rein in the cost of health care and make it more affordable for everyone?