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 agree, but conservatives claim that national healthcare in these countries is so awful. You know, all those horror stories about needing to wait six months for an MRI. Life expectancy ought to be lower in that case. It isn't.
It may be. Perhaps the lack of gun violence and DUI among their kids offsets the drop in life expectancy from the wait for medical treatment. That's the point, we don't know because that's not a good measure. You can't logically say it's not a good measure and then use it as a measure to prove a point.
It may be. Perhaps the lack of gun violence and DUI among their kids offsets the drop in life expectancy from the wait for medical treatment. That's the point, we don't know because that's not a good measure. You can't logically say it's not a good measure and then use it as a measure to prove a point.
Well, maybe it's not a good measure, but maybe it's also not a bad measure. If their healthcare system is as bad as conservatives claim, then there ought to be enormous ramifications that would be evident in life expectancy. That does not appear to be the case. Countries that have absolutely no healthcare system have low life expectancies. There is a correlation.
The same with education comparisons where international organizations like
the WHO research is poorly controlled. HS graduation rates in Japan arent
including alot of the physically and mentally imaired who have to be
accomodated here in the US and therefore are included in those numbers.
Maybe not in Japan, but other countries do include those kids "who have to be accommodated", and they're still leaps and bounds ahead of you.
now count the number of countries with socialized healthcare. Countries like Canada and UK get drugs cheap because people in the US fund that research by paying the full price.
I see you're completely ignoring the question. How much does the US pour into funding for the CIHR, since you claimed the US funds ALL the medical research in other countries?
You simply cannot compare the US to European nations in regards to things like this. We have a much larger and far more demographically diverse population than any other first-world nation. There are more people and diversity in Wisconsin than in Norway.
Europe is larger than the US. True, different nations, but the US can do the same and involve heavily the 50 states to regulate this stinking pile of vile chit, although the 50 regulatory agencies in the states is worth about a dime to the masses, plenty to just a handful of families, and a hyped up self worth to those worthless insurance commissioners.
"Growing numbers of patients are being denied treatment for conditions such as loss of sight, arthritis and infertility as the NHS increasingly rations healthcare in order to save money, research by the Guardian shows. Services for patients with mental health problems and addictions and those who need physiotherapy after accidents are being scaled back, while operations to fix hernias or remove cataracts or varicose veins are either being refused or delayed. Primary care trusts all over England are having to reduce their services or provide them in new ways, as they struggle to contribute to the £20bn savings drive imposed by the health service chief executive, Sir David Nicholson. Many PCTs are banning, restricting or imposing long waiting times on treatments that until recently were provided routinely by the NHS."
"Personal Healthcare Budgets (PHBs) were not discussed at the 2010 election and are little discussed now, but they will soon be implemented across the entire NHS. In its direct payments for healthcare document, the Department of Health says that the government will legislate this summer to allow people to have a separate bank account to hold a PHB and change the law to allow patients to pay for NHS services."
If you follow British media back 20-30 years you will find the same types of stories year in and year out. Threats/accusations of NHS cuts are very very old news.
Also, unlike US papers, British papers do not even pretend to be unbiased. They all have a detectable agenda. The Guardian is by far the most left-wing mainstream daily paper in the country and given that the current government is a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition, it's no surprise that the Guardian is going to leap at any opportunity to make the government look bad. When I lived there, Tony Blair was PM so the papers leading the NHS fearmongering were mainly the right-wing Daily Telegraph and tabloid papers like The Sun and Daily Mail. ("Tabloid" is not the same type of newspaper there that is here.)
Well, maybe it's not a good measure, but maybe it's also not a bad measure. If their healthcare system is as bad as conservatives claim, then there ought to be enormous ramifications that would be evident in life expectancy. That does not appear to be the case. Countries that have absolutely no healthcare system have low life expectancies. There is a correlation.
Do you realize the amount of a difference the healthcare system would have to make for it to have "enormous ramifications" when mixed in with the multiple other factors as an average across hundreds of millions of people?
Absolutely no healthcare system might be enough of a difference, but then again, those countries also suffer from other economic and living conditions that bring down the numbers. Is it lack of Aetna or undrinkable water?
There are simply too many variables that play into that to make it a valid measure.
As long as your willing to pay the cost then its possible. but we see from discussion I the healthcare bill that no oe is wiling to pay anything but want to push it on the same ole rich people. you also have to take what it does to jobs as seen their and increasing spending to support jobs does not work as we have seen those countries. You also have to accept that what we know as healthcare isn't going to be the same especially on demand. Its just like the reality of this recession on employment there are consequences to taking money out of the private economy and putting it in the public spending sector. Investment in private is expected to make returns and grow GDP. Wealth sharing I reality has doe ne nothing but increase those number at the bottom since it started in the mid 60's. Only those in the private sector have really increase wealth. IMO; with the new healthcare bill what we will see is consequences of less jobs than otherwise especially for those at low income. They trade jobs for healthcare; which is the consequences.
You simply cannot compare the US to European nations in regards to things like this. We have a much larger and far more demographically diverse population than any other first-world nation. There are more people and diversity in Wisconsin than in Norway.
Do you, now? Here's a list of how diverse Canadian cities are. It's a percentage of visible minorities.
(It's from 2011. The numbers are bigger now.)
Because the liberals want socialized programs but only want to tax the capitalists.
Those other countries have tax rates and systems that are far more regressive.
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.
