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.
I think you're not familiar with the phrase "Objective Criteria."
I think you have no idea the Commonwealth Fund is biased.
I think you need to look at the results of the CONCORD Study funded by the US Centers for Disease Control, the British National Healthcare System, and Lancet:
Britain's National Health System is obviously better than the US, right?
What I see is that when someone has an agenda the "dial goes to 11". As in why does this list of rich countries go to 11 when there are more more rich countries that are not listed that are apparently worse than the US?
What about Denmark, Iceland, Finland Japan, Austria, Belgium etc.?
I think you're not familiar with the phrase "Objective Criteria."
I think you have no idea the Commonwealth Fund is biased.
I think you need to look at the results of the CONCORD Study funded by the US Centers for Disease Control, the British National Healthcare System, and Lancet:
Britain's National Health System is obviously better than the US, right?
Objectively...
Mircea
Misleading is more like it. The US preventative program both over-diagnoses and over treats breast and prostate cancers that were never going to kill the person in the first place, making it appear that we do better on cures. We simply "find" and "cure" more harmless cancers than other nations which are more concerned about the costs of low yield testing. Our colorectal screening program is a big success in no small part because it is now "free" and widely available under the ACA.
Misleading is more like it. The US preventative program both over-diagnoses and over treats breast and prostate cancers that were never going to kill the person in the first place, making it appear that we do better on cures. We simply "find" and "cure" more harmless cancers than other nations which are more concerned about the costs of low yield testing. Our colorectal screening program is a big success in no small part because it is now "free" and widely available under the ACA.
(Exhale..heavy breath) Ya know, I can't complain. When I completely imploded, and became physically disabled, in a big way, the top pros in the area I needed, attended to me. In quality fashion. And, I was just about, financially, ruined, at the time. Thanks to an ex wife, a severe disability, and a loss of my life long employment , because of the latter.
I had my disability application in in, for a year. Three days after it all went, potentially, terminal, three doctors, again, top in this area, had me covered. As much as they could, anyway. They saved my life, saved my leg, and they didn't HAVE to do ANY of it. They did it, because I had worked, paid in, and , ultimately, broke myself, getting to such an.igmanimeous...end.
My record spoke for itself. I worked, a very physical job, for 3+ decades, coping with severe pain, and running on grit. Despite all I had given them, my employer, tossed me in the gutter. Now, all I have, is my SSDI, and the patching up these docs gave me, which was TOP SHELF. Without even knowing if they would even get paid for it. They just did, what needed doing.
I can't say a word against our medical system. I'm not, exactly, back to 100%, but, that couldn't be done, anyway. These docs saved my life, kept me walking, albeit painfully, and I was covered, ...money was not the issue. God Bless America, and Nevada.
All I have to say is if my state didn't have free care for the poor, I would've been bankrupt after a spat of hospital admissions racking up bills in excess of 100 grand total in the past year and a half.
In roughly 5 (or more) of those visits I would be dead without those visits.
All I have to say is if my state didn't have free care for the poor, I would've been bankrupt after a spat of hospital admissions racking up bills in excess of 100 grand total in the past year and a half.
In roughly 5 (or more) of those visits I would be dead without those visits.
Medical costs wouldn't be nearly as high if it was not for the insurance system in place that prevents price shopping and a competitive market.
All those issues happen in all healthcare systems except for the systems where you are stuck in limbo waiting for care, those system you die from your condition.
No two countries do Universal Healthcare the same way beyond mandatory participation.
What universial healthcare systems have in common is substantially greater involvement of government on the cost side, than occurs in the U.S. Those governments negotiate the price of prescription medications and maintain MD comprised Compariative - Effectiveness Panels to determine treatment protocols.
For example, most births in Germany are delivered by lower cost mid wives in birthing centers, not hospitals, unless the high risk nature of the mother and child warrant hospitalization or mom is willing and able to pay out of pocket.
In Japan, most hospitals are small, 12 bed operations opened and operated by MDs.
Elsewhere, hospitals and drug manufacturers do not advertise. No one is told to " ask your doctor for drug XYZ". Hospitals elsewhere do not offer valet parking and lattes.
Most hospitals in the U.S. are Not for Profit. This state does not preclude a hospital from making a profit. Many consistently make $ hundreds of millions in profit each year. They use those profits to build their brands and either destroy or acquire the competition. Hospitals in the rest of the world do not have non medical senior management pulling in $1 million+ a year.
Hospitals via a trade association and Big Pharma don't lobby the federal and state governments the was is done in the U.S.
70% of US adults are overweight/ obese- the fattest people on earth. This makes the U.S. People more vulnerable to disease, Heart, Diabetes and certain Cancers. No wonder the per capita cost in the U.S. are substantially higher than elsewhere.
Lastly ( for the moment) I increasingly do not buy into all the alleged cost disparities of common procedures between the U.S. and the rest of the world. the basis seems to be what is billed to the U.S. insurer, not what the insurer pays the provider. The difference reflects as a PPO discount on the patient's Statement of Benefits.
I'll start by saying the title was misleading. Is America's the worst? No. I don't know much about North Korean healthcare, but I'd imagine it's not very good.
But is the US the worst of the wealthy nations? I think that's sort of a subjective question. Worst in what area? You can average it all together, but that still isn't as helpful as you'd think. The US does do quite well in terms of getting people back on their feet health wise. Financially... ehh.
There are problems but lets not just focus on the problems, shall we? Remember the good things we have and let's try and bring everything to the same standard as the good things rather than just says 'let's copy Sweden' or whatever. Certainly, we can and should observe what they do, but to copy them exactly would be quite irresponsible.
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.
