Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So basically you're saying that we have terrific healthcare... for the wealthy.
Not exactly. We have terrific healthcare in the USA overall. Considering the vast majority of the country has access (vast majority according to Obama's definition) have access to private health care even lower income people.
It's other countries that try to defend their systems even with their short falls (higher taxes or rationing of care). There is a huge difference between access to care and getting real quality care. One just have to look at the "best healthcare system in the USA"...aka what's know as the VA health care system. All active military people and their families have "access" to that system. They get bonus points according to this chart. But we all know the VA's "access" problems. It's the same way in other countries. Getting access and getting quality healthcare are not necessarily related. You can get bad healthcare even with access because of backlogs in the system.
If we go by the reports "metrics". Than we must conclude Ferrari makes the worst car in the world. Because most people don't have access to a Ferrari. So we must ding Ferrari on access. Correct?
If a country that is ~17,000,000,000,000 in the red is "rich" I shudder to think what the balance sheet of a "poor" one is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacredgrooves
Maybe we are less healthy because the general population feasts on junk food and sit on their couch too much?
I wouldn't consider our country "rich" either given we have a debt of ~17 trillion dollars....sounds pretty poor to me. We used to be rich, could be rich again with the right adjustments and some time, but we certainly are not rich at this given time and show no willingness to actually do anything meaningful about it.
The country isn't $17 trillion in the red. The public sector has a balance of -$17 trillion. The private sector and foreign sector has a balance of +$17 trillion.
Double entry accounting.
Testing, testing, testing! We do more unnecessary testing than any country in the world! One more Xray! One more MRI!
Last time an Orthopedist said that to me, I hightailed it to Mexico, like I did 2X before!
My Mexican Orthopedist: American Dr.'s have a vested interest in these testing factories, as many own them!
I say, let the Cuban Dr.'s, and other foreign Dr.'s come over, let them open up shops and post a warning sign above them: Enter at your own risk!
And? Millions will be entering at their own risk, and afterwards? Risk? What risk? That was one awesome knee replacement for just $10k! Gee whiz! I didn't even need that 2nd MRI! Gee whiz! Those last 3 prescriptions were unnecessary?
Read the UK fine print please. "Urgent" is a relative term.
Look at this disclaimer,
"Note: Referrals for investigations of breast symptoms where cancer is not initially suspected are not urgent referrals for suspected cancer, therefore, they fall outside the scope of this right."
U see the distinction. Wait times. That's the big problem.
You see a GP that day, have a blood test and are referred for a mammogram, there is a regular free mammogram service in Britain for older women and specialist mammogram units.
A "positive stool blood test" for colon cancer wouldn't be considered "urgent" by Uk standards as well. You are looking up to a 18 week max waiting time for what the UK considered "non urgent". You most likely won't get into seeing a GI doc let alone get colonoscopy within 2 weeks.
The NHS has national bowel screen testing and you are seen very quickly if you are believed to have bowel cancer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp
USA medicine works more "efficiently" in this matter. Once again I use a different terminology. Other countries use the word "efficiently differently". For them it means coordinated care but not fast referrals and timely care. Same words different meanings.
By efficient with USA standards. Private practice can often times get you not only to see a specialist for "non urgent" positive blood stool test within 2 weeks. You will be colonoscopy extremely quickly especially in those places where GI docs own their own facility.
Which must be why the US system did so well in this study. In terms of a colonoscopy it can be carried out by a doctor or specialist nurse and the results reviewed by the oncologist as to whether surgery on polyps or cancer treatment is needed.
Nowhere in the US will you get an appointment as a new patient with a specialist and an OR booking within two weeks for a non-emergency procedure. A + guaiac is not particularly threatening (most are due to hemorrhoids).
8 of the top 10 newest medical breakthroughs developed in whole or in part in the US.
Highest number of new medications available.
Fastest time to diagnosis.
Fastest time to treatment.
Like many things, the numbers aren't telling the whole when these studies come out. Our HC expenditures are high because we don't just give up on futile cases or reduce care like many socialized single-payer states that people are raving about. Much like "murder rates" in some countries with are not counted unless a conviction is made, infant mortality rates are not counted unless AFTER a certain gestational age. This plays an enormous role considering that the US will make attempts on <24wk newborns which have an incredibly low (<10% IIRC from texts) whereas other countries do not. Likewise, expenditures for terminal diseases in other countries are significantly different, money here is spent on everyone regardless on advancement of the disease or likely outcome. Other countries will ignore treatment and skip to a palliative care arrangement.
Expenditures also come from nationalized payment scales vs. free markets. Our free market produces more new pharmaceutical compounds then the ENTIRE WORLD COMBINED, by a decent margin. Other countries will then "barter" (in reality, extort) pharmaceutical companies into selling their product for a set (much lower) rate or prevent its distribution in that country, or outright open production to their companies under generic auspices.
So yes, other countries are great for boo-boos. If you want your newborn to get the best chance, your parents to get the best care, the best access to the latest and greatest then I'd stick the US model.
8 of the top 10 newest medical breakthroughs developed in whole or in part in the US.
Highest number of new medications available.
Fastest time to diagnosis.
Fastest time to treatment.
Like many things, the numbers aren't telling the whole when these studies come out. Our HC expenditures are high because we don't just give up on futile cases or reduce care like many socialized single-payer states that people are raving about. Much like "murder rates" in some countries with are not counted unless a conviction is made, infant mortality rates are not counted unless AFTER a certain gestational age. This plays an enormous role considering that the US will make attempts on <24wk newborns which have an incredibly low (<10% IIRC from texts) whereas other countries do not. Likewise, expenditures for terminal diseases in other countries are significantly different, money here is spent on everyone regardless on advancement of the disease or likely outcome. Other countries will ignore treatment and skip to a palliative care arrangement.
Expenditures also come from nationalized payment scales vs. free markets. Our free market produces more new pharmaceutical compounds then the ENTIRE WORLD COMBINED, by a decent margin. Other countries will then "barter" (in reality, extort) pharmaceutical companies into selling their product for a set (much lower) rate or prevent its distribution in that country, or outright open production to their companies under generic auspices.
So yes, other countries are great for boo-boos. If you want your newborn to get the best chance, your parents to get the best care, the best access to the latest and greatest then I'd stick the US model.
I don't know where you got your figures from, but in terms of cancer there's a whole array of problems relating to international comparisons. Whilst Americans are actually unhealthier than many European countries and die earlier.
In terms of the NHS it has invested heavily in Cancer Services and state of the art new regional cancer centres, national screening programmes and early detection, however it will only be in future statistics that this will be reflected.
As for medical breakthroughs, other countries do make them, including the UK which has played an important role in everything from antibiotics through to DNA structure through to MRI/CT Scanners and numerous pharmaceutical drugs - 'see my earlier post' for more details.
Nope, you haven't seen real USA private practice medicine especially ones that own their own clinics and surgery centers.
The NHS uses private companies including American ones to carry out some services, and there are private health care providers in the UK, it's just that the vast majority of the population don't choose to take out private health insurance. Whilst in terms of cancer, the vast majority of cases are in the elderly, the older you get the more chances of developing cancer in general.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
