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.
wow, the US health care system really sucks in comparison. why are some people so opposed to changing it? It could only get better
The medical establishment doesn't want to change a thing because any changes that would give Americans a better deal would mean less profit for the providers. So called "health" care which is really disease care in this country is all about MAKING MONEY first and foremost. A distant second is to help the patient. Whereas in Europe and Asia, it is about helping the patient first.
For those who don't want to believe the above, another thing you can do is simply look at what passes for safety of our food and water in this country that wouldn't be permitted in a million years in other countries.
Our water is poisoned with Fluoride (and we are told it is beneficial when there is a blatent warning on every tube of toothpaste not to swallow due to fluoride being a poison). We allow irradiation of some of our food. Food manufacturers are allowed to use genetically engineeered ingredients that have huge health risks associated with them and not even let consumers know that the food that they are buying from brand name companies are loaded with GMOs as labeling of genetically engineered ingredients and irradiated ingredients is not required.
I think we have a pretty good one the way it is. I don't think it needs to improve much. It's certainly not going to be made better by nationalizing it so everyone can get mediocre care.
Really? So a system that has the highest number of uninsured individuals doesn't need improvement? What if said system also causes people to go bankrupt?
Why would everyone get mediocre care? Europeans, Asians, and Canadians don't seem to get mediocre care.
Sorry, but by most metrics the system is not a good system.
And this is the sad thing. The discussion always descends into partisan bickering and nothing ever happens. You will get the usual cherry-picked articles about how the British/Canadian/French/German/etc. systems have failed or have this problem or that problem. This is then used as proof that all is well with our system and nothing needs to be done. But that isn't the case.
We are now spending around 16%-17% of GDP on health care and the medical outcomes simply do not reflect that level of expenditure. At some point this rampant cost inflation becomes unsustainable and a real drag on the economy. We really need to get beyond the bickering and start looking at solutions which will not just slow the cost inflation but will reverse it. Despite the scare stories, this does not have to be a government run solution. But it will be if health insurance companies and other special interests do not start becoming part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
I agree completely with you. However, the right wing in this country will not allow that debate. They are the group that deflects the debate with the cherry picked articles. Their very nature is to oppose change.
You get what you pay for. If you reduce the cost, you reduce the quality. I don't know why you'd want to do that.
So I suppose you are for putting more money towards education and paying teachers more to attract more talent and improve our education system. After all, our kids rank poorly compared to other kids in the world. So let's throw more money at it, right?
Where would you rather get sick America or Sub-Saharan Africa?
It all depends. If the doctors are good, it makes no difference.
You are aware that a lot of insurance companies are sending transplant patients and other expensive procedures overseas for surgery because the cost of travel and medical treatment combined is still a fraction of what it would cost to do the procedure in the USA, aren't you?
Another factor: vehicles per 1000 people: US, 842. Chile 97. You mean that Chileans actually walk instead of drive? This has more effect on health care costs than Chile's fewer lawyers or administrators.
Another factor: vehicles per 1000 people: US, 842. Chile 97. You mean that Chileans actually walk instead of drive? This has more effect on health care costs than Chile's fewer lawyers or administrators.
So, if we make Americans walk instead of drive will that get rid of administrative and medical waste, defensive medicine and high practice protection insurance?
It would shift the focus to preventing disease instead of treating it, though cutting the waste in treating disease should certainly be implemented.
Which would be part of a wider debate on how to make out system better and cheaper to run. For example, how do you focus on prevention when, for 40 million people, the only access to health care is the ER. The problem is that we seem incapable of even getting that debate started.
It's funny how the real debate concerning health care has never been acceptable for decades. Nixon wanted UHC but was rebuffed very quickly. We all remember the Clinton Health care inititive and it was killed with a viscious political fight. Funny, Obama's health care bill is exactly like the republican counter proposal during the Clinton years. And now we have the current mess. The democrat plan did little more than put lipstick on a pig and the republican plan offers nothing but more of the same.
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.
