U.S. health care lagging

[Dr.Who]

We pay more, yet have to hastily mop up after surgery, and risk more infections? If we pay more, why don't we get better service?

The stats on whether or not we pay more are not established.

We do have higher rates of deaths from preventable diseases. And that is a problem, but it is not as if it is the only problem. when comparing countries one would expect that the better ones would be better on some measures and not better on others but hope that the average would be higher. I content that on average we have a much better health care system than all the other countries.

Lets look at the deaths from preventable diseases for a moment.

France is number one and we are last - a travesty that should be changed. But it is not as if France has no preventable deaths and we have all of them.

If a teacher were to grade the various countries on preventable deaths on an absolute scale France would get an A ...but so would the USA. We simply have the lowest A in the class.

I would also point out that while we are worst of 19 (why 19 and not 20? Maybe to ensure that we are worst?) a few years ago we were not worst we were 15th. How much really changed in about 3 years? Could it be that the way the statistics are tabulated makes a big difference?

And who picked the 19 countries to be on the list? The Commonwealth did. Has anyone checked to see that they picked those countries based on any reason other than their desire to make the US look bad?

Every time we hear the counterintuitive statement that the US is bad on health care it always comes back to either the outdated and bad WHO study or the just plain bad commonwealth. I suggest that most of the problem is with those two studies.

 

[Dr.Who]

The number one "lifestyle choice" cause of diseases is smoking. Americans are a long way from being the heaviest smokers.

"

You are right that smoking is the number one cause of lifestyle caused deaths. Additionally it is ALSO the number one cause of preventable deaths:


According to the CDC:

"Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States."

http://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/AAG/osh.htm

I do not know why we do not have the highest rate of smoking but we do have the highest rate of preventable deaths due to it. Maybe those who do smoke smoke more. Maybe it matter that people are on the pill and smoke at the same time. Maybe what matters is smoking rates 20 years ago and not now...

Regardless smoking is still the number one cause of preventable deaths in this country and it is a lifestyle choice. I am not going to blame the semi-private health care system wholly for something that is caused LARGELY by lifestyle choices. If we suddenly had a socialized system tomorrow our death rate from preventable diseases would not change one bit.

 

[PLC1]

More from the article in the OP:

In 2010, 44 percent of adults in the U.S. ages 19 to 64 either did not have insurance at some point during the year or did not have adequate insurance to cover their needs, up from 35 percent in 2003.

And a third of adults did not get medical care, did not fill a prescription or skipped a needed test or treatment because of cost.

In Great Britain, just 5 percent of adults reported such an access problem.

Other nations have obesity. Other nations have smokers. Other nations have people who make poor health choices.


Other modern nations don't have a problem with access like we do.

We pay more, but get less.

 

[Openmind]

The stats on whether or not we pay more are not established.

Oh. . .really? How many "stats" do you need to establish the fact we pay more?

 

[Openmind]

The stats on whether or not we pay more are not established.

Oh. . .really? How many "stats" do you need to establish the fact we pay more?

Here is ONE MORE of the MANY "stats" presented by Kaiser:



link: Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected ...

www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/OECD042111.cfm


Apr 28, 2011 – 2] Similarly, smaller developed countries face different challenges in ... Health spending per capita in the United States is much higher than in other countries – at least ..... Compared to other developed nations, the U.S. spends more on ... and growing health care costs, American policy makers may elect to

 

[Gipper]

Please tell me the stats on the number of Americans who die every year due to LACK OF HEALTHCARE (as happens in many socialist HC systems)??? It does not happen in America. All Americans have full access to healthcare whether they can afford it or not. Not having insurance is a meaningless point promoted by the left to denigrate our system. They are intent on destroying the greatest healthcare system in the world...in an effort to fix it.

The commie WHO ranked HC by country...

Ranking

Data from 1997 was used in the report.
Ranking Country Expenditure Per Capita
1 France 1
2 Italy 11
3 San Marino 21
4 Andorra 23
5 Malta 37
6 Singapore 38
7 Spain 24
8 Oman 62
9 Austria 6
10 Japan 13
11 Norway 16
12 Portugal 28
13 Monaco 12
14 Greece 30
15 Iceland 14
16 Luxembourg 5
17 Netherlands 9
18 United Kingdom 26
19 Ireland 25
20 Switzerland 2
21 Belgium 15
22 Colombia 49
23 Sweden 7
24 Cyprus 39
25 Germany 3
26 Saudi Arabia 63
27 United Arab Emirates 35
28 Israel 19
29 Morocco 99
30 Canada 10
31 Finland 18
32 Australia 17
33 Chile 44
34 Denmark 8
35 Dominica 70
36 Costa Rica 50
37 United States 1
38 Slovenia 29
39 Cuba 118
40 Brunei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO's_ranking_of_healthcare_systems

Now anyone who is familiar with the HC in those nations ranked above the USA and not infected with liberalism, knows this is complete BS. None of those nations offers better care than the US and to think Cuba is ranked only 2 spots below is absurd and only proofs the WHO's socialist intentions. This ranking is PROPAGANDA!!!

If I needed an MRI or heart bypass surgery, I will get it in the USA TOMORROW...but not in anyone of the other nations.

Yes, we have problems in our HC system, but destroying it to remake it (an old leftist ploy) is not the answer. And, the lies from the left on this issue make it impossible to solve the problem.

 

[dogtowner]

Not having insurance is a meaningless point

so true. this rallying point has only to do with addressing the so-called stigma of taking charity. taking a good or service you on't pay for IS charity. if you need it then yoiu need it but it does not change the nature of the arrangement.

and despite what you think, even little kids know who won that soccer game whether you keep score or not. cookies and a drink sooth the pain or punctuate the celebration. so long as you teach sportsmanship its all good.

 

[Dr.Who]

Oh. . .really? How many "stats" do you need to establish the fact we pay more?

There are no stats that measure how much everyone pays so the answer is we need just one good one.

France, ranked number one, for example uses tax money to pay for the tuition of its doctors but that money does not show up in the stats on how much they pay for health care. While in the US doctors pass the cost of tuition on to patients and that cost does show up in the cost of health care.

Socialist countries in general hide the cost in all sorts of ways that don't show up in the stats. That is just the nature of large centralized planning.

 

[Gipper]

There are no stats that measure how much everyone pays so the answer is we need just one good one.

France, ranked number one, for example uses tax money to pay for the tuition of its doctors but that money does not show up in the stats on how much they pay for health care. While in the US doctors pass the cost of tuition on to patients and that cost does show up in the cost of health care.

Socialist countries in general hide the cost in all sorts of ways that don't show up in the stats. That is just the nature of large centralized planning.

Yes, and those same socialists nations distort their infant mortality rates, but this does not prevent libs from condemning American HC for having higher rates of infant mortality.

Once again, truth and liberalism have nothing in common.

But the international comparisons in "infant mortality" rates aren't comparing the same thing, anyway. We also count every baby who shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight at birth.

By contrast, in much of Europe, babies born before 26 weeks' gestation are not considered "live births." Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive. In Canada, Austria and Germany, only babies weighing at least a pound are considered live births.

By excluding the little guys, these countries have simply redefined about one-third of what we call "infant deaths" in America as "miscarriages."

Moreover, many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan – the infant mortality champion – don't count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. Almost half of infant deaths in the U.S. occur in the first day.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=111543

 

[Openmind]

Please tell me the stats on the number of Americans who die every year due to LACK OF HEALTHCARE (as happens in many socialist HC systems)??? It does not happen in America. All Americans have full access to healthcare whether they can afford it or not. Not having insurance is a meaningless point promoted by the left to denigrate our system. They are intent on destroying the greatest healthcare system in the world...in an effort to fix it.

The commie WHO ranked HC by country...



Now anyone who is familiar with the HC in those nations ranked above the USA and not infected with liberalism, knows this is complete BS. None of those nations offers better care than the US and to think Cuba is ranked only 2 spots below is absurd and only proofs the WHO's socialist intentions. This ranking is PROPAGANDA!!!

If I needed an MRI or heart bypass surgery, I will get it in the USA TOMORROW...but not in anyone of the other nations.

Yes, we have problems in our HC system, but destroying it to remake it (an old leftist ploy) is not the answer. And, the lies from the left on this issue make it impossible to solve the problem.

You are wrong, as usual, but sinceyou choose to ignore every stats and reports that clearly show that you are wrong, andyou choose to live with your own set of "data" and your own spin, there is nothing to debate rationaly.

If you don't have insurance, or even if you have insurance, but your insurance does't think you "need" an MRI, even if your doctor wants you to have one, you either won't get it, or you will have to pay full (inflated) price for it.

That doesn't happen in other countries.

I know. I was refused (by my insurance) not even an MRI, but a simple scan of the thorax after suffering major trauma during a car accident and suffering from pain around my diaphragm. They even tried to refuse covering a CTScan of the head, although I had, inthe same accident, broken a car window with my forehead, sufferred a wide gash, and was complaining of intense headeache. Their excuse to try to refuse covering the CTScan: I had not lost consciousness after the brute force trauma!

 

[Openmind]

There are no stats that measure how much everyone pays so the answer is we need just one good one.

France, ranked number one, for example uses tax money to pay for the tuition of its doctors but that money does not show up in the stats on how much they pay for health care. While in the US doctors pass the cost of tuition on to patients and that cost does show up in the cost of health care.

Socialist countries in general hide the cost in all sorts of ways that don't show up in the stats. That is just the nature of large centralized planning.

and yet, France also spends LESS in education (and is rated higher in education also) as the US!
So,what isthe explanation for that?

The French Lesson In Health Care
The nation's system isn't quite as superb as Sicko maintains, but it's pretty good

Michael Moore's documentary Sicko trumpets France as one of the most effective providers of universal health care. His conclusions and fist-in-your-gut approach may drive some Americans up the wall. But whatever you think of Moore, the French system—a complex mix of private and public financing—offers valuable lessons for would-be health-care reformers in the U.S.

In Sicko, Moore lumps France in with the socialized systems of Britain, Canada, and Cuba. In fact, the French system is similar enough to the U.S. model that reforms based on France's experience might work in America. The French can choose their doctors and see any specialist they want. Doctors in France, many of whom are self- employed, are free to prescribe any care they deem medically necessary. "The French approach suggests it is possible to solve the problem of financing universal coverage...[without] reorganizing the entire system," says Victor G. Rodwin, professor of health policy and management at New York University.

France also demonstrates that you can deliver stellar results with this mix of public and private financing. In a recent World Health Organization health-care ranking, France came in first, while the U.S. scored 37th, slightly better than Cuba and one notch above Slovenia. France's infant death rate is 3.9 per 1,000 live births, compared with 7 in the U.S., and average life expectancy is 79.4 years, two years more than in the U.S. The country has far more hospital beds and doctors per capita than America, and far lower rates of death from diabetes and heart disease. The difference in deaths from respiratory disease, an often preventable form of mortality, is particularly striking: 31.2 per 100,000 people in France, vs. 61.5 per 100,000 in the U.S.

That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.

To grasp how the French system works, think about Medicare for the elderly in the U.S., then expand that to encompass the entire population. French medicine is based on a widely held value that the healthy should pay for care of the sick. Everyone has access to the same basic coverage through national insurance funds, to which every employer and employee contributes. The government picks up the tab for the unemployed who cannot gain coverage through a family member.

. From 2007 Businessweek article

 

[dogtowner]

You are wrong, as usual, but sinceyou choose to ignore every stats and reports that clearly show that you are wrong, andyou choose to live with your own set of "data" and your own spin, there is nothing to debate rationaly.

If you don't have insurance, or even if you have insurance, but your insurance does't think you "need" an MRI, even if your doctor wants you to have one, you either won't get it, or you will have to pay full (inflated) price for it.

That doesn't happen in other countries.

I know. I was refused (by my insurance) not even an MRI, but a simple scan of the thorax after suffering major trauma during a car accident and suffering from pain around my diaphragm. They even tried to refuse covering a CTScan of the head, although I had, inthe same accident, broken a car window with my forehead, sufferred a wide gash, and was complaining of intense headeache. Their excuse to try to refuse covering the CTScan: I had not lost consciousness after the brute force trauma!

Yes it does. And on a similar note they delay action until the budgetary backlog eases.

 

[Gipper]

You are wrong, as usual, but sinceyou choose to ignore every stats and reports that clearly show that you are wrong, andyou choose to live with your own set of "data" and your own spin, there is nothing to debate rationaly.

If you don't have insurance, or even if you have insurance, but your insurance does't think you "need" an MRI, even if your doctor wants you to have one, you either won't get it, or you will have to pay full (inflated) price for it.

That doesn't happen in other countries.

I know. I was refused (by my insurance) not even an MRI, but a simple scan of the thorax after suffering major trauma during a car accident and suffering from pain around my diaphragm. They even tried to refuse covering a CTScan of the head, although I had, inthe same accident, broken a car window with my forehead, sufferred a wide gash, and was complaining of intense headeache. Their excuse to try to refuse covering the CTScan: I had not lost consciousness after the brute force trauma!

More irrational points.

The problem with our HC system is NOT access. The problem is TOO MUCH ACCESS. You and your kind have misdiagnosised the problem and the cure you offer will kill us all.

If you really believe insurance companies regularly overrule a doctor and refuse to pay for services, you are so badly misinformed that it is impossible to debate. Doctors, insurance companies including Medicare and Medicaid generally offer TOO many services, which they do in some cases to prevent being sued by the D party's biggest contributors (the stinking trial lawyers).

Your personal experience is purely anecdotal. I and others could easily come up with examples of care family members have received that far exceeded our expectations and I have yet to ONCE ENCOUNTER an insurance company denying coverage for services the doctor required.

And, I know of many instances where HC in other nations the WHO claims is better than the USA, which were down right horrific.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are wrong, as usual, but sinceyou choose to ignore every stats and reports that clearly show that you are wrong, andyou choose to live with your own set of "data" and your own spin, there is nothing to debate rationaly.

If you don't have insurance, or even if you have insurance, but your insurance does't think you "need" an MRI, even if your doctor wants you to have one, you either won't get it, or you will have to pay full (inflated) price for it.

That doesn't happen in other countries.

I know. I was refused (by my insurance) not even an MRI, but a simple scan of the thorax after suffering major trauma during a car accident and suffering from pain around my diaphragm. They even tried to refuse covering a CTScan of the head, although I had, inthe same accident, broken a car window with my forehead, sufferred a wide gash, and was complaining of intense headeache. Their excuse to try to refuse covering the CTScan: I had not lost consciousness after the brute force trauma!

The stories of other countries refusing to offer treatment or even of our own country's public system refusing to offer treatment are just as rampant. Any time someone else pays for treatment there will be disagreements.

A simple search using the terms "nhs refused treatment" revealed half a dozen examples on the first page of results alone.

When I typed in "medicaid refused treatment" the results were the same.

Then when I went to see not just that everyone denies claims but to see if someone denies them more this is what I found (data from the AMA):

http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/20...rams-deny-more-claims-than-private-insurance/

As you can all see medicare denies far more claims than any private insurer both in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of a percent.

I could not find a stat describing how many are denied in the UK. Anyone have that?

 

[Openmind]

The stories of other countries refusing to offer treatment or even of our own country's public system refusing to offer treatment are just as rampant. Any time someone else pays for treatment there will be disagreements.

A simple search using the terms "nhs refused treatment" revealed half a dozen examples on the first page of results alone.

When I typed in "medicaid refused treatment" the results were the same.

Then when I went to see not just that everyone denies claims but to see if someone denies them more this is what I found (data from the AMA):

http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/20...rams-deny-more-claims-than-private-insurance/

As you can all see medicare denies far more claims than any private insurer both in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of a percent.

I could not find a stat describing how many are denied in the UK. Anyone have that?

You either are not thinking, or you are not being honest.

Do you realize how many MORE request for treatment the population over 65 (or the disabled) have than the "healthy" population below the age of 65?

Would you mind taking that element in consideration before accusing medicare of refusing more claims?

As you will sooner or later find out, even as a "healthy" senior citizen, there are many more needs that occur. . .this is why all the other "private, for profit health care" do NOT WANT to cover that population.

And that is why there are more denial of care, especially for people who can't understand that, no matter how many treatment they undergo, no matter how many CT Scan, or MRI, their arthritis will not get better. And no matter how many CTScan of the brain are done, the sings of Alzheimers, or the decline in brain activity will not be corrected.