CrackerJax
New Member
Britian's system is going broke.....better?
Not a right
- Thread starter TheBrutalTruth
- Start date
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
is this thread not about the American health care system? It feels , again, like a we are better than you thread. Woomeister out...
CrackerJax
New Member
It's about holding socialized medicine up to an objective light...... you just don't like the shadow produced by that light.
Here's a cancer story from GB that is sure to convince the USA of the benefits of rationing health care.....
Cancer patients in drug protest
Protesters gathered outside the headquarters of NICE in London
Kidney cancer patients have protested in London to demand free access to drugs that could prolong their lives.
Campaigners from across the UK want the government to make Bevacizumab, Sorafenib, Sunitinib and Temsirolimus widely available on the NHS.
Draft guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) said the drugs did not offer value for money.
NICE says the drugs are being appraised and could still be prescribed locally.
Clive Stone, 60, from Freeland near Witney in Oxfordshire, joined other demonstrators to hand over a petition in support of the drugs at the Holborn offices of NICE, the body responsible for providing national guidance on medication.
We feel we've been left to go away and die quietly and we are not going to do that
Clive Stone
He said: "Can you imagine what they [senior oncologists] must feel like going to work every day and seeing people like us and knowing there is a drug there that they can give but they can't do it?
"Their hands are tied."
Earlier this month, NICE published its draft guidelines on treatments for patients with advanced kidney cancer.
It concluded that the drugs - Bevacizumab, Sorafenib, Sunitinib and Temsirolimus - did not offer value for money. (BAM!!! There it is!!!)
In a letter to a national newspaper on Sunday, some of the UK's top cancer consultants warned that NHS drug "rationing" was forcing some patients to remortgage their homes to pay for treatment.
Clive Stone wants his local primary care trust to pay for the drugs
Mr Stone added: "We feel we've been left to go away and die quietly and we are not going to do that."
In a statement, NICE insisted that it had not yet issued final guidance on the use of the drugs.
"All comments received during the consultation will be reviewed by the independent appraisal committee at their meeting in September 2008," said a spokesman.
"Following this meeting, the appraisal committee will issue the next draft guidance.
"Until NICE issues final guidance on the use of Bevacizumab, Sorafenib, Sunitinib or Temsirolimus as treatment options for advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma, individual cases should be assessed at a local level within the NHS.
"Once NICE issues its guidance on a technology it replaces local recommendations."
Here's a cancer story from GB that is sure to convince the USA of the benefits of rationing health care.....
Cancer patients in drug protest
Kidney cancer patients have protested in London to demand free access to drugs that could prolong their lives.
Campaigners from across the UK want the government to make Bevacizumab, Sorafenib, Sunitinib and Temsirolimus widely available on the NHS.
Draft guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) said the drugs did not offer value for money.
NICE says the drugs are being appraised and could still be prescribed locally.
Clive Stone, 60, from Freeland near Witney in Oxfordshire, joined other demonstrators to hand over a petition in support of the drugs at the Holborn offices of NICE, the body responsible for providing national guidance on medication.
Clive Stone
He said: "Can you imagine what they [senior oncologists] must feel like going to work every day and seeing people like us and knowing there is a drug there that they can give but they can't do it?
"Their hands are tied."
Earlier this month, NICE published its draft guidelines on treatments for patients with advanced kidney cancer.
It concluded that the drugs - Bevacizumab, Sorafenib, Sunitinib and Temsirolimus - did not offer value for money. (BAM!!! There it is!!!)
In a letter to a national newspaper on Sunday, some of the UK's top cancer consultants warned that NHS drug "rationing" was forcing some patients to remortgage their homes to pay for treatment.
Mr Stone added: "We feel we've been left to go away and die quietly and we are not going to do that."
In a statement, NICE insisted that it had not yet issued final guidance on the use of the drugs.
"All comments received during the consultation will be reviewed by the independent appraisal committee at their meeting in September 2008," said a spokesman.
"Following this meeting, the appraisal committee will issue the next draft guidance.
"Until NICE issues final guidance on the use of Bevacizumab, Sorafenib, Sunitinib or Temsirolimus as treatment options for advanced and/or metastatic renal cell carcinoma, individual cases should be assessed at a local level within the NHS.
"Once NICE issues its guidance on a technology it replaces local recommendations."
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
hmm and your system is great???
"I never thought I'd see the day that I was in this situation," said Natashia Pierre, 41, of Central Islip, N.Y.
Pierre, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in January 2007, is insured through her husband and pays 20 percent of her medical bills out-of-pocket.
Her monthly co-pay for chemotherapy is $500, and she is still struggling to pay the $1,000 fee from her lumpectomy earlier this year. She says debt collectors call her home every day.
Related
ABC News OnCall+ Breast Cancer Center Home Page
"How do I tell my kids they can't have lunch money because mommy has cancer?" she said. "It's so frustrating. My husband has to work all the time, to keep the health insurance. He can't even take time off when I have surgery."
"We're not middle class and we're not poor — and we get no assistance."
Pierre's situation is not unique. Numerous posts on the ABC OnCall Plus Breast Cancer site testify to the fact that paying for breast cancer screening and treatment is a top concern. These worries affect both those without health insurance as well as those who are underinsured, meaning that they don't have adequate coverage to pay their bills in the event of a major medical problem.
According to a recent survey conducted by USA Today/Kaiser Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health, 33 percent of cancer patients have trouble paying medical bills and 43 percent report skipping treatments or not filling prescriptions because of the cost.
In addition, one in five cancer patients with insurance will use up all or most of their savings during the course of treatment.
"It's very difficult," said Dr. Stephen Edge, medical director of the Breast Center at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y. "Not only with breast cancer, but with all areas of medical treatment, people in America are commonly forced into desperate financial situations and even bankruptcy by medical bills.
"The overall cost for treating a typical breast cancer will top $50,000 or even $100,000."
NEXT >
Read 16 Comments and Post Your Own
Next Story: Antidepressant, Breast Cancer Drug May Not Mix
Print
RSS
E-mail
Share this story with friends
Facebook
Reddit
Twitter
StumbleUpon
More
Comment & Contribute
Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.
Member Comments (16)
I THINK THAT THE PERSON WRITING THIS ARTICLE HAS MEDICARE CONFUSED WITH MEDICAID. MEDICARE IS FOR FOLKS 65 AND OVER NOT FOR THE PERSON OF THE AGE IN THE STORY. BESIDES THAT, THIS COUNTRY REALLY NEEDS TO WAKE UP AND REALIZE WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY. MOST OF US ARE REALLY JUST ONE INCIDENT AWAY FROM TOTAL RUIN BECAUSE OF HEALTH COSTS. THE OLDER WE GET, THE WORSE IT GETS. GOD HELP US ALL IF ANOTHER REPUBLICAN IS ELECTED THIS NOVEMBER.
JEANNETTELJ 7/24/08
To those who asks when is Bush going to understand that medical costs are ruining us? The answer is that Bush does not care about you or your medical costs. I was fortunate to have gotten on a program where I was elligible for Medicaid after being diagnosed with breast cancer in January of '05. I had three surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation - but my radiation is called Mammosite where they placed a baloon inside the breast and deliver radiation through a tube into the baloon instead of the traditional radiation beamed at the breast. Fortunately I have not incurred the costs I've read about some of the unfortunate women have here, but I'll be so glad when Bush is gone in November. He has proposed now more than once to remove $5 billion dollars from Medicaid for 5 years, but Congress has blocked him so far. I'm not sure how that would affect the program I'm on, but fear that it might. At least I'm through the hard part and am now taking a drug for 5 years (Arimidex) - have been on it now for 3 years with two more to go. I'm on a really good program because when I need a refill I only have to pay a few dollars in co-payment. I wish every woman going through breast cancer treatment was on this program. I just hold my breath at the end of every year when I have to re-file my papers for elligibility that I infact will qualify again for another year and so far I have. Don't know what I would have done without this program because I could never have afforded treatment without it.
Berrywine33 6/28/08
My husband and I lost our jobs and my in-laws purchased insurance for us after my husband had a 1 day stay in the hospital for chest pains which cost us over $25,000. When the private healthcare insurance policy was purchased, the insurance agent did not explain the hidden clauses in the policy nor the fact it wasn't even governed in our state. Having worked our entire lives, we didn't know to ask these questions. We learned that this insurance company will deem about everything as a pre-existing condition. I was diagnosed with breast cancer on 1/2/08 and my so-called insurance company has refused to pay for treatments. I have well over $100,000 in medical bills that we cannot pay and all of the bills have not yet arrived. We filed a complaint with the state about the lack of disclosure but out of luck. We don't qualify for Medicaid because we own a house. We have worked for decades and paid tons of taxes over the years. Now when we need help, we can't get any assistance. I get angry that people who have never paid taxes are able to get free medical care. We are not able to get assistance during a time when we are down on our luck, unemployed due to corporate restructuring or outsourcing plus as middle aged people, we are having a hard time finding employment even at a much lower rate. Hospitals treat cancer patients like thieves when it is the hospital who is charging HUGE amounts for treatment. I cannot pay these medical bills and do not know if I will be filing bankruptcy or how this will be dealt with. I still have years of a cancer battle and 5 years of expensive medications to take. If the cancer doesn't kill me, the stress from the financial ruin will. We have spent all of our retirement just trying to keep our house and now we basically bought another house called "Cancer Treatment". It is unfortunate that the only people in this country who feel that the United States is a place of opportunity and generosity are the ones who are illegals
"I never thought I'd see the day that I was in this situation," said Natashia Pierre, 41, of Central Islip, N.Y.
Pierre, who was diagnosed with breast cancer in January 2007, is insured through her husband and pays 20 percent of her medical bills out-of-pocket.
Her monthly co-pay for chemotherapy is $500, and she is still struggling to pay the $1,000 fee from her lumpectomy earlier this year. She says debt collectors call her home every day.
Related
ABC News OnCall+ Breast Cancer Center Home Page"How do I tell my kids they can't have lunch money because mommy has cancer?" she said. "It's so frustrating. My husband has to work all the time, to keep the health insurance. He can't even take time off when I have surgery."
"We're not middle class and we're not poor — and we get no assistance."
Pierre's situation is not unique. Numerous posts on the ABC OnCall Plus Breast Cancer site testify to the fact that paying for breast cancer screening and treatment is a top concern. These worries affect both those without health insurance as well as those who are underinsured, meaning that they don't have adequate coverage to pay their bills in the event of a major medical problem.
According to a recent survey conducted by USA Today/Kaiser Foundation/Harvard School of Public Health, 33 percent of cancer patients have trouble paying medical bills and 43 percent report skipping treatments or not filling prescriptions because of the cost.
In addition, one in five cancer patients with insurance will use up all or most of their savings during the course of treatment.
"It's very difficult," said Dr. Stephen Edge, medical director of the Breast Center at Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, N.Y. "Not only with breast cancer, but with all areas of medical treatment, people in America are commonly forced into desperate financial situations and even bankruptcy by medical bills.
"The overall cost for treating a typical breast cancer will top $50,000 or even $100,000."
NEXT >
Read 16 Comments and Post Your Own
Next Story: Antidepressant, Breast Cancer Drug May Not Mix
RSS
Share this story with friends
StumbleUpon
More
Comment & Contribute
Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.
Member Comments (16)
I THINK THAT THE PERSON WRITING THIS ARTICLE HAS MEDICARE CONFUSED WITH MEDICAID. MEDICARE IS FOR FOLKS 65 AND OVER NOT FOR THE PERSON OF THE AGE IN THE STORY. BESIDES THAT, THIS COUNTRY REALLY NEEDS TO WAKE UP AND REALIZE WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY. MOST OF US ARE REALLY JUST ONE INCIDENT AWAY FROM TOTAL RUIN BECAUSE OF HEALTH COSTS. THE OLDER WE GET, THE WORSE IT GETS. GOD HELP US ALL IF ANOTHER REPUBLICAN IS ELECTED THIS NOVEMBER.
JEANNETTELJ 7/24/08
To those who asks when is Bush going to understand that medical costs are ruining us? The answer is that Bush does not care about you or your medical costs. I was fortunate to have gotten on a program where I was elligible for Medicaid after being diagnosed with breast cancer in January of '05. I had three surgeries, chemotherapy and radiation - but my radiation is called Mammosite where they placed a baloon inside the breast and deliver radiation through a tube into the baloon instead of the traditional radiation beamed at the breast. Fortunately I have not incurred the costs I've read about some of the unfortunate women have here, but I'll be so glad when Bush is gone in November. He has proposed now more than once to remove $5 billion dollars from Medicaid for 5 years, but Congress has blocked him so far. I'm not sure how that would affect the program I'm on, but fear that it might. At least I'm through the hard part and am now taking a drug for 5 years (Arimidex) - have been on it now for 3 years with two more to go. I'm on a really good program because when I need a refill I only have to pay a few dollars in co-payment. I wish every woman going through breast cancer treatment was on this program. I just hold my breath at the end of every year when I have to re-file my papers for elligibility that I infact will qualify again for another year and so far I have. Don't know what I would have done without this program because I could never have afforded treatment without it.
Berrywine33 6/28/08
My husband and I lost our jobs and my in-laws purchased insurance for us after my husband had a 1 day stay in the hospital for chest pains which cost us over $25,000. When the private healthcare insurance policy was purchased, the insurance agent did not explain the hidden clauses in the policy nor the fact it wasn't even governed in our state. Having worked our entire lives, we didn't know to ask these questions. We learned that this insurance company will deem about everything as a pre-existing condition. I was diagnosed with breast cancer on 1/2/08 and my so-called insurance company has refused to pay for treatments. I have well over $100,000 in medical bills that we cannot pay and all of the bills have not yet arrived. We filed a complaint with the state about the lack of disclosure but out of luck. We don't qualify for Medicaid because we own a house. We have worked for decades and paid tons of taxes over the years. Now when we need help, we can't get any assistance. I get angry that people who have never paid taxes are able to get free medical care. We are not able to get assistance during a time when we are down on our luck, unemployed due to corporate restructuring or outsourcing plus as middle aged people, we are having a hard time finding employment even at a much lower rate. Hospitals treat cancer patients like thieves when it is the hospital who is charging HUGE amounts for treatment. I cannot pay these medical bills and do not know if I will be filing bankruptcy or how this will be dealt with. I still have years of a cancer battle and 5 years of expensive medications to take. If the cancer doesn't kill me, the stress from the financial ruin will. We have spent all of our retirement just trying to keep our house and now we basically bought another house called "Cancer Treatment". It is unfortunate that the only people in this country who feel that the United States is a place of opportunity and generosity are the ones who are illegals
medicineman
New Member
The US sells drugs to all countries that want them, making the market much larger than local, although for some unknown reason, (Greed), they charge less to foriegners, and charge us for all their R&D and advertising. BTW, we've seen how well de-regulation works, like the subprime and wall street, bankers etc.
medicineman
New Member
CJ says:
I certainly did not say that. It is the responsibility of the citizen to maintain insurance if they CHOOSE to carry it, no one else. Life is and cannot be guaranteed, and neither can health. You can't pass a regulation for a healthy life. You can't scrap a system which works so well for the vast majority of the population because of the small minority of sad stories. There will always be sad stories. There are tons of those stories taking place every day in NHS systems.....but those don't seem to bother you.
What about the 50 million+ with no insurance and no money to buy it? What about all those with pre-existing diseases that are exempted from most insurance carriers and even if they find one, they cannot afford the premiums? What about people being kicked off their insurance for "over using" it? What about all the bankruptcies that the medical system causes?The horrer stories associated with the American medical system are too numerous to list, but you say it is not broken, I think what you mean, it's not broken for you and screw everyone else. I hate to excercise my judgement of you CJ, just let me say you remind me of one of those souless middle managers that have been screwing over people their whole life and loving it.
I certainly did not say that. It is the responsibility of the citizen to maintain insurance if they CHOOSE to carry it, no one else. Life is and cannot be guaranteed, and neither can health. You can't pass a regulation for a healthy life. You can't scrap a system which works so well for the vast majority of the population because of the small minority of sad stories. There will always be sad stories. There are tons of those stories taking place every day in NHS systems.....but those don't seem to bother you.
What about the 50 million+ with no insurance and no money to buy it? What about all those with pre-existing diseases that are exempted from most insurance carriers and even if they find one, they cannot afford the premiums? What about people being kicked off their insurance for "over using" it? What about all the bankruptcies that the medical system causes?The horrer stories associated with the American medical system are too numerous to list, but you say it is not broken, I think what you mean, it's not broken for you and screw everyone else. I hate to excercise my judgement of you CJ, just let me say you remind me of one of those souless middle managers that have been screwing over people their whole life and loving it.
CrackerJax
New Member
There is no 50 million ppl without money to purchase insurance. that has been disproven over and over.... keep up.
Woo, in terms of cancer treatment I have already put up a rock hard chart that shows how much ahead the USA is on cancer treatment compared to the EU. It's enough to have me keep my citizenship if I vamoose out of here. One of the reasons is because of our better technology and opportunity to heal (more of everything in medical hardware and advancements). The USA outspends everyone in med technology. The EU cannot cover all the bases so it leaves the innovation up to us. So who do we leave the innovation up to? In the end the EU loses if the USA goes with the govt. scheme.s
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Cracker, give me 3 pros/cons with national healthcare and 3 pros/cons with private healthcare.
If you don't mind.
medicineman
New Member
Let me try. private: 1.you can choose. uh two you can choose, uh three you can choose. that's thr pro, I'll hold myself back and only list three cons. 1. way too expensive to the individual 2.you can be kicked out for any reason. 3.pre-existinjg conditions are generally exempt from coverage and you may be banned from coverage altogether.
public: pro, 1. no cost when being treated 2.everyone is covered for everything. 3. Much less expensive per person when one figures in premiums and out of pocket expenses with private plans.
Cons.................... Uh, I'm stumped. I think one has to be on the far right or employed by the current health care system to find fault with a single payer plan. Like government take over, I guess let the killing begin.
CrackerJax
New Member
Private Health Care
Pro:
1.) self reliance
2.) freedom of choice
3.) access to superior medicine and technique...cutting edge. in the clutch FTW, when it counts.
Con:
1.) Access to other markets (denied by govt.)
2.) Govt. oversight costs
3.) TORT Lawyers
Public Health Care
Pro:
1.) Another option
2.) A small % will get insurance
3.) ?
Con:
1.) Loss of self reliance.
2.) Loss of innovation.
3.) Cost overruns forever.
Pro:
1.) self reliance
2.) freedom of choice
3.) access to superior medicine and technique...cutting edge. in the clutch FTW, when it counts.
Con:
1.) Access to other markets (denied by govt.)
2.) Govt. oversight costs
3.) TORT Lawyers
Public Health Care
Pro:
1.) Another option
2.) A small % will get insurance
3.) ?
Con:
1.) Loss of self reliance.
2.) Loss of innovation.
3.) Cost overruns forever.
MuyLocoNC
Well-Known Member
Wow, you're kidding? Right? Are we being punked? Ashton? This is where I normally write three or four paragraphs exposing just how backwards this type of thinking really is. But, I just don't have it in me today.
I'll leave it at this, if we continue to give the government this much power and control over our lives, what happens when your party is no longer in control. What then? You aren't just giving this administration the power, you are also giving more power to the people you detest the most. When the worm turns, and it always does, the control doesn't go away, the power doesn't wither away just because a Republican sits in the Oval office and the Senate/Congress is run by the other party. The power you grant this government now, will most certainly be used against you or to do that which you find to be most distasteful later.
P
PadawanBater
Guest
Great post! +rep.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Think of health care provided with all the expertise of a public school teacher, the professionalism of a municipal public works employee, and the courtesy of a clerk at the Drivers License Bureau.
All the while with the constant refrain of "We need more funding!"
All the while with the constant refrain of "We need more funding!"
CrackerJax
New Member
By the way, Congress has already written into the bill ..... that they are EXEMPT from the health care bill.
No tip off yet? Slow learners..... hooboy.
No tip off yet? Slow learners..... hooboy.
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
your chart was a comparison between EUROPE and America over 7 years ago, I have already pointed out that there are many small countries in Europe that have awful health care so a direct comparison is pointless, also Verdacchia is a hypertension expert not a cancer expert so maybe in his book he is a little bias and trying to prove a point. Ring any bells?
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Nope, they wrote that into A bill - not into THE bill.
Woomeister
Well-Known Member
How many times in the past 20 years have you heard some American politician proclaim, "the American healthcare system is the best in the world." Too many, I fear. But let's face it. People tend to speak most fervently from their own personal experiences. Maybe those politicians, medical or otherwise, actually believed what they said. One could make the case that "the American healthcare system is the best in the world if:
Myth: The U.S. has the best health care system in the world.
Fact: The U.S. has among the worst health statistics of all rich nations.
Summary
The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world - it has the best emergency care system in the world. Advanced U.S. medical technology has not translated into better health statistics for its citizens; indeed, the U.S. ranks near the bottom in list after list of international comparisons. Part of the problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. Another part of the problem is that America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality among all rich nations, and poverty affects one's health much more than the limited ministrations of a formal health care system.
Argument
Let's review the health care statistics first, and analyze them afterwards. All statistics here are for the year 2001; they have generally become worse for the U.S. since then.
Health Care Expenditures (percent of GDP) (1)United States 13.4%Canada 10.0Finland 9.1Sweden 8.6Germany 8.4Netherlands 8.4Norway 7.6Japan 6.8United Kingdom 6.6Denmark 6.5Doctors' incomes: (2)United States $132,300Germany 91,244Denmark 50,585Finland 42,943Norway 35,356Sweden 25,768Percent of population covered by public health care:ALL NATIONS (except below) 100%France, Austria 99Switzerland, Spain, Belgium 98Germany 92Netherlands 77United States 40Average paid maternity leave (as of 1991; this changed with Clinton's signing of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act): Sweden 32 weeksFrance 28United Kingdom 18Norway 18Denmark 18Japan 14Germany 14Netherlands 12United States 0Life Expectancy (years): Men WomenJapan 76.2 82.5France 72.9 81.3Switzerland 74.1 81.3Netherlands 73.7 80.5Sweden 74.2 80.4Canada 73.4 80.3Norway 73.1 79.7Germany 72.6 79.2Finland 70.7 78.8United States 71.6 78.6United Kingdom 72.7 78.2Denmark 72.2 77.9Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):United States 10.4United Kingdom 9.4Germany 8.5Denmark 8.1Canada 7.9Norway 7.9Netherlands 7.8Switzerland 6.8Finland 5.9Sweden 5.9Japan 5.0Death rate of 1-to-4 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):United States 101.5Japan 92.2Norway 90.2Denmark 85.1France 84.9United Kingdom 82.2Canada 82.1Netherlands 80.3Germany 77.6Switzerland 72.5Sweden 64.7Finland 53.3Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):United States 203Switzerland 175Canada 161France 156Finland 154Norway 128Germany 122Denmark 120United Kingdom 114Sweden 109Japan 96Netherlands 90Note: the murder rate for the above age group is 48.8 per 200,000. Even subtracting this entirely still puts the U.S. near the top of the list. Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people): United States 5.8 yearsDenmark 4.9Finland 4.8Canada 4.5Germany 4.5United Kingdom 4.4Norway 4.3Switzerland 4.1Netherlands 4.0Sweden 3.8Japan 3.3Percent of people with normal body mass: Men WomenGermany 53% 37Finland 51 37United Kingdom 46 38Canada 52 29Switzerland 49 30France 44 30Denmark 44 25United States 47 22Sweden 44 25Percent of people who believe their health care system needs fundamental change: United States 60%Sweden 58United Kingdom 52Japan 47Netherlands 46France 42Canada 38An explanation of America's poor health care statistics
Sharp readers will notice that the last chart may mean different things to different people. Conservatives think the U.S. health care system needs reform because there is too much government involvement in health care; liberals because there is not enough.
So let's clarify this statistic with a few others. Americans are the most dissatisfied with the quality and quantity of their health care. Of the 10 largest industrialized nations, the U.S. ranked dead last in health care satisfaction, with an approval rating of only 11 percent. (3) There's no putting a positive spin on this statistic; any president with such a low approval rating would be impeached!
Most of this dissatisfaction stems from the high expense and unavailability of U.S. health care. During the 1993 debate on health care reform, polls consistently showed that two-thirds of all Americans supported the idea of universal coverage. (4) Polls also showed that Americans didn't want to pay the higher taxes to achieve this goal, which many pundits took to be an amusing example of public inconsistency. Actually, the public was entirely consistent. Other nations manage to cover everybody, and at lower cost.
Nor is America's international reputation in health care as high as many Americans boast it to be. "Ask anyone you know from a foreign country... which country is the envy of the world when it comes to health care," Rush Limbaugh wrote in See, I Told You So. But according to a Gallup poll published by the Toronto Star, only 2 percent of all Canadians believe that the U.S. has a better health care system than their own. (5)
The fact is that America does not have the finest health care system in the world; it has the finest emergency care system in the world. Highly trained American doctors can summon Star Wars-type technology in saving patients who have become seriously injured or critically ill. But as far as preventative medicine goes, the U.S. is still in the Stone Age. It should be no surprise that in America's health care business, entrepreneurs will take a pound of cure over an ounce of prevention every time.
But in reality, what affects the health of Americans lies more outside the formal health care system than within it. In Europe during the last century, life expectancy nearly doubled after nations purified their drinking water and created sanitation systems. In America during this century, the highest cancer rates are found in neighborhoods around the chemical industry. (6) A healthy diet and exercise provide better health than most medicines in most circumstances. Other nations have realized that factors outside the hospital are more important than factors inside it, and have used this bit of wisdom to lower their health care costs.
Perhaps the greatest reason why Europeans are healthier than Americans is because they have reduced poverty, especially child poverty. The link between poverty and poorer health has long been proven. One survey reviewed more than 30 other studies on the relationship between class and health, and found that "class influences one's chances of staying alive. Almost without exception, the evidence shows that classes differ on mortality rates." (7) The American Journal of Epidemiology states that "a vast body of evidence has shown consistently that those in the lower classes have higher mortality, morbidity and disability rates" and these "are in part due to inadequate medical care services as well as to the impact of a toxic and hazardous physical environment." (
And in an even more important finding, studies from Harvard and Berkeley have proven that income inequality -- not just absolute poverty -- is equally important. (9) States with the highest levels of income inequality also have the highest mortality and morbidity rates. The reason why relative poverty matters is because prices and opportunities are relative too - the U.S. may have the best medical technology in the world, but at $10,000 a procedure, who can afford it?
Many reasons contribute to the worse health of the poor. Political scientist Jeffrey Reiman writes: "Less money means less nutritious food, less heat in winter, less fresh air in summer, less distance from sick people, less knowledge about illness or medicine, fewer doctor visits, fewer dental visits, less preventative care, and above all else, less first-quality medical attention when all these other deprivations take their toll and a poor person finds himself seriously ill." (10) And this is not to mention that the poor work and live in more polluted, hazardous and strenuous environments.
These deprivations are especially hard on infants in their critical development years. The U.S. has tried to combat this problem by offering universal prenatal and postnatal health care, much like Europe does. But the U.S. is fighting against a head wind because it has levels of poverty that Europe does not. Again, a person's health is affected by more factors outside the formal health care system than within it. It's not enough to give a few programs to a person in poverty; what's needed is removing that person from poverty completely.
"When I look back on my years in office," says C. Everett Koop, Reagan's former Surgeon General, "the things I banged my head against were all poverty." (11)
If America is to improve its health statistics, it must not only pass universal health care, but reduce poverty as well.
- You have full, comprehensive, in-depth health insurance coverage with low deductibles and copayments, and no exclusions for pre-existing conditions;
- You live in a major metropolitan area;
- You have a long-term relationship with a physician who serves your primary care needs, seeks specialist attention when needed, and finds the right specialist;
- You speak and understand good English and so does your doctor, and you are neither sight- nor hearing-impaired;
- You are well educated;
- You have money and transportation capability;
- You are white;
- You are naturally skeptical and questioning;
- You personally access the internet to help you take charge of your life; and, until recently
- You are male.
Myth: The U.S. has the best health care system in the world.
Fact: The U.S. has among the worst health statistics of all rich nations.
Summary
The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world - it has the best emergency care system in the world. Advanced U.S. medical technology has not translated into better health statistics for its citizens; indeed, the U.S. ranks near the bottom in list after list of international comparisons. Part of the problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. Another part of the problem is that America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality among all rich nations, and poverty affects one's health much more than the limited ministrations of a formal health care system.
Argument
Let's review the health care statistics first, and analyze them afterwards. All statistics here are for the year 2001; they have generally become worse for the U.S. since then.
Health Care Expenditures (percent of GDP) (1)United States 13.4%Canada 10.0Finland 9.1Sweden 8.6Germany 8.4Netherlands 8.4Norway 7.6Japan 6.8United Kingdom 6.6Denmark 6.5Doctors' incomes: (2)United States $132,300Germany 91,244Denmark 50,585Finland 42,943Norway 35,356Sweden 25,768Percent of population covered by public health care:ALL NATIONS (except below) 100%France, Austria 99Switzerland, Spain, Belgium 98Germany 92Netherlands 77United States 40Average paid maternity leave (as of 1991; this changed with Clinton's signing of the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act): Sweden 32 weeksFrance 28United Kingdom 18Norway 18Denmark 18Japan 14Germany 14Netherlands 12United States 0Life Expectancy (years): Men WomenJapan 76.2 82.5France 72.9 81.3Switzerland 74.1 81.3Netherlands 73.7 80.5Sweden 74.2 80.4Canada 73.4 80.3Norway 73.1 79.7Germany 72.6 79.2Finland 70.7 78.8United States 71.6 78.6United Kingdom 72.7 78.2Denmark 72.2 77.9Infant Mortality Rate (per 1,000 live births):United States 10.4United Kingdom 9.4Germany 8.5Denmark 8.1Canada 7.9Norway 7.9Netherlands 7.8Switzerland 6.8Finland 5.9Sweden 5.9Japan 5.0Death rate of 1-to-4 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):United States 101.5Japan 92.2Norway 90.2Denmark 85.1France 84.9United Kingdom 82.2Canada 82.1Netherlands 80.3Germany 77.6Switzerland 72.5Sweden 64.7Finland 53.3Death rate of 15-to-24 year olds (per community of 200,000 per year):United States 203Switzerland 175Canada 161France 156Finland 154Norway 128Germany 122Denmark 120United Kingdom 114Sweden 109Japan 96Netherlands 90Note: the murder rate for the above age group is 48.8 per 200,000. Even subtracting this entirely still puts the U.S. near the top of the list. Premature Death (years of life lost before the age of 64 per 100 people): United States 5.8 yearsDenmark 4.9Finland 4.8Canada 4.5Germany 4.5United Kingdom 4.4Norway 4.3Switzerland 4.1Netherlands 4.0Sweden 3.8Japan 3.3Percent of people with normal body mass: Men WomenGermany 53% 37Finland 51 37United Kingdom 46 38Canada 52 29Switzerland 49 30France 44 30Denmark 44 25United States 47 22Sweden 44 25Percent of people who believe their health care system needs fundamental change: United States 60%Sweden 58United Kingdom 52Japan 47Netherlands 46France 42Canada 38An explanation of America's poor health care statistics
Sharp readers will notice that the last chart may mean different things to different people. Conservatives think the U.S. health care system needs reform because there is too much government involvement in health care; liberals because there is not enough.
So let's clarify this statistic with a few others. Americans are the most dissatisfied with the quality and quantity of their health care. Of the 10 largest industrialized nations, the U.S. ranked dead last in health care satisfaction, with an approval rating of only 11 percent. (3) There's no putting a positive spin on this statistic; any president with such a low approval rating would be impeached!
Most of this dissatisfaction stems from the high expense and unavailability of U.S. health care. During the 1993 debate on health care reform, polls consistently showed that two-thirds of all Americans supported the idea of universal coverage. (4) Polls also showed that Americans didn't want to pay the higher taxes to achieve this goal, which many pundits took to be an amusing example of public inconsistency. Actually, the public was entirely consistent. Other nations manage to cover everybody, and at lower cost.
Nor is America's international reputation in health care as high as many Americans boast it to be. "Ask anyone you know from a foreign country... which country is the envy of the world when it comes to health care," Rush Limbaugh wrote in See, I Told You So. But according to a Gallup poll published by the Toronto Star, only 2 percent of all Canadians believe that the U.S. has a better health care system than their own. (5)
The fact is that America does not have the finest health care system in the world; it has the finest emergency care system in the world. Highly trained American doctors can summon Star Wars-type technology in saving patients who have become seriously injured or critically ill. But as far as preventative medicine goes, the U.S. is still in the Stone Age. It should be no surprise that in America's health care business, entrepreneurs will take a pound of cure over an ounce of prevention every time.
But in reality, what affects the health of Americans lies more outside the formal health care system than within it. In Europe during the last century, life expectancy nearly doubled after nations purified their drinking water and created sanitation systems. In America during this century, the highest cancer rates are found in neighborhoods around the chemical industry. (6) A healthy diet and exercise provide better health than most medicines in most circumstances. Other nations have realized that factors outside the hospital are more important than factors inside it, and have used this bit of wisdom to lower their health care costs.
Perhaps the greatest reason why Europeans are healthier than Americans is because they have reduced poverty, especially child poverty. The link between poverty and poorer health has long been proven. One survey reviewed more than 30 other studies on the relationship between class and health, and found that "class influences one's chances of staying alive. Almost without exception, the evidence shows that classes differ on mortality rates." (7) The American Journal of Epidemiology states that "a vast body of evidence has shown consistently that those in the lower classes have higher mortality, morbidity and disability rates" and these "are in part due to inadequate medical care services as well as to the impact of a toxic and hazardous physical environment." (
And in an even more important finding, studies from Harvard and Berkeley have proven that income inequality -- not just absolute poverty -- is equally important. (9) States with the highest levels of income inequality also have the highest mortality and morbidity rates. The reason why relative poverty matters is because prices and opportunities are relative too - the U.S. may have the best medical technology in the world, but at $10,000 a procedure, who can afford it?
Many reasons contribute to the worse health of the poor. Political scientist Jeffrey Reiman writes: "Less money means less nutritious food, less heat in winter, less fresh air in summer, less distance from sick people, less knowledge about illness or medicine, fewer doctor visits, fewer dental visits, less preventative care, and above all else, less first-quality medical attention when all these other deprivations take their toll and a poor person finds himself seriously ill." (10) And this is not to mention that the poor work and live in more polluted, hazardous and strenuous environments.
These deprivations are especially hard on infants in their critical development years. The U.S. has tried to combat this problem by offering universal prenatal and postnatal health care, much like Europe does. But the U.S. is fighting against a head wind because it has levels of poverty that Europe does not. Again, a person's health is affected by more factors outside the formal health care system than within it. It's not enough to give a few programs to a person in poverty; what's needed is removing that person from poverty completely.
"When I look back on my years in office," says C. Everett Koop, Reagan's former Surgeon General, "the things I banged my head against were all poverty." (11)
If America is to improve its health statistics, it must not only pass universal health care, but reduce poverty as well.
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Yep. US health care sucks. Comparatively and relatively speaking, it's absurdly inept.
Now wait for more skewed statistics, weak reasonings, and ill-logic. We've provided our facts - mortality rates, coverage rates, etc.... I haven't seen anything corroborating any semblance of an argument for our current system. I have what some would call a platinum insurance plan and am not at all threatened by nationalized insurance. I welcome it with open arms, just like I welcomed Obama. He is a politician and he is corrupt. He will lie, cheat, and steal. But I welcome the ideologies he brings. And I am in the majority. A majority does not indicate truth, but in our democratic republic, the majority rules. Socrates called democracy the rule of the pigs, and I think he's right. But the constitution is quite clear - majority rules.
Now wait for more skewed statistics, weak reasonings, and ill-logic. We've provided our facts - mortality rates, coverage rates, etc.... I haven't seen anything corroborating any semblance of an argument for our current system. I have what some would call a platinum insurance plan and am not at all threatened by nationalized insurance. I welcome it with open arms, just like I welcomed Obama. He is a politician and he is corrupt. He will lie, cheat, and steal. But I welcome the ideologies he brings. And I am in the majority. A majority does not indicate truth, but in our democratic republic, the majority rules. Socrates called democracy the rule of the pigs, and I think he's right. But the constitution is quite clear - majority rules.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
I'm no Constitutional Scholar. Nor do I have more degrees than a thermometer. But where in this 'antiquated document' does it state 'majority rules?'
In fact, I have my copy sitting right here. Could you please inform me anywhere in the Constitution where the word 'Democracy' is mentioned at all?
Article and section, please.
In fact, I have my copy sitting right here. Could you please inform me anywhere in the Constitution where the word 'Democracy' is mentioned at all?
Article and section, please.
jrh72582
Well-Known Member
Oh yeah, you're right. I forgot. We DON'T have a democracy in America. Stupid me! We have a strict republic.
We strictly obey a piece of paper. It's never been amended by majority vote. It's never been changed by majority vote. Women still cannot vote. Stupid me.....I forgot.
And I too have a copy of the Constitution right here in front of me. It contains a great introduction by Caroline Kennedy (oh wait, she's a democrat, so she cannot be trusted as a source, right?) and an afterward by David Eisenhower, explaining complexities that are apparently ignored by you. So let's debate the Constitution - please. It's one of my favorite topics. I foresaw this debate taking place on campus a lot this year, so I brushed up a bit this past summer.