|
DesideriScuri -> RE: US Health Care Costs (12/8/2014 2:08:14 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
It also contains the murder rates, and things like that, too. So, a fat, lazy nation where people kill each other more would tend to have a lower life expectancy, health care aside, no?
quote:
ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1
Most of the stats dealing with healthcare and life expectancy are dealing with deaths and mishaps within the healthcare industry, not other shootings etc.
So when these stats are published, it generally doesn't include general deaths or serious injuries due to external influences unless it says as much.
So, life expectancy doesn't have anything to do with the risk of premature death? Really?
Two different sets of stats, mostly unrelated. So, no.
Really? Premature death doesn't impact life expectancy? You're going with that?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
For bowel cancer outcomes, sure.
That was just one example from many.
Are you really being deliberately obtuse?? Or just nit-picking for the sake of it?
That's all you asked about. I wouldn't claim any one health care system is better overall than any other one based on one metric. I have no issue claiming one health care system is better in a category than any other based on the metric of that category.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I don't disagree with that. But, that's why I don't like using subjective criteria for stuff like that. From a cost perspective, the US yields worse results per dollar spent than, probably any country in the world, industrialized or not. And, that speaks to how much our care costs, not the talent or quality of the caregivers or care.
But when you compare other stats, like birth mortality rates and others, that would certainly determine the quality of the healthcare given, not the cost (that is a separate issue). [8|]
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
All-in-all, the US doesn't do very well at all on most of the healthcare indicators.
To sum up: You dramatically get less healthcare coverage than anyone and at the most expensive rate.
You are less likely to survive at birth, despite the huge costs.
You are more likely to be an obese child and an obese adult.
You are likely to die sooner too.
You are also more likely to die from heart disease, a traffic accident or suicide than us.
We are already expending more public dollars than most countries spend total, with only Norway spending more public dollars than the US.
Not according to the graphs I cited.
The US is by far the most expensive for healthcare AND pharmaceuticals, per capita and per GDP.
Really?
[image]http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/health_glance-2013-en/images/graphics/g7-01-01.gif[/image]
Oh, wait. You might be right. The Netherlands might have higher public dollar spending than the US, too. The white band in their graph makes it difficult to tell, though.
I know we have the most expensive costs. That was the point of this whole thread! Way to catch up, Capt. Obvious!
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Is obesity due to health care, or lifestyle choices?
Do heart attack deaths (per 100k population) really define how good a health system is?
The US has a high obesity rate. The US has a high rate of diabetes. The US has a high rate of heart disease. None of those are strictly due to the health care system at all. I'm fat. I have insurance. I don't see a physician about it. I don't take medications for it. None of my health care spending has anything to do with my obesity. I also do not have, as technically defined, high blood pressure. Again, that has nothing to do with any health care spending or system in the US. I don't have diabetes. Has my health care system prevented diabetes in my case? Of course not.
The graphs I showed were mortality rates for those conditions.
That would indicate both A) lifestyle choices, and B) the healthcare provided for those conditions in preventing mortality.
The criteria applied is the same for all. So if the US comes out worse, it's because it is worse, and for no other reason.
No, anything of anything doesn't stop any particular individual from suffering those things.
To make any sort of comparison is ridiculous.
Then, why did you do that? If there are more cases of something in one country, wouldn't it stand to reason that there would be more deaths from that something, too?
US has 7th Highest Cancer Rate in the Worldquote:
Experts Say Lifestyle Changes Needed to Reduce Nation's Cancer Rates
Cancer Survival Rates Improving Across Europe, But Still Lagging Behind United Statesquote:
One of the reports compares the statistics from Europe with those from the United States and shows that for most solid tumors, survival rates were significantly higher in US patients than in European patients.
So, we have the 7th highest rate of cancer (the UK, I believe, was somewhere in the 20's), but have survival rates significantly higher. Now, that might say something about the quality of cancer care in the US, compared the UK, no?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
My grandmother passed away from complications of diabetes. She was on insulin, so she was using the US health care system. She also didn't really take care of herself, and wasn't really all that interested in managing her diabetes (as told to me by an Aunt that's a nurse, and an Aunt that's a Physician's Assistant). Was her death to diabetes somehow not prevented by the medical system in the US, or by her own decision to not manage her disease properly?
But... if the healthcare in general (not your particular circumstances or your mom's) are not providing the same level of care as other countries in preventing mortality, that makes it worse than others.
It's no good picking out individual cases because we can all do that.
These stats are general and comparable to each other; that's the point.
Except they aren't due to the health care system, but to personal choices. Unless a system forces a person to comply with care advice, things like diabetes deaths aren't necessarily impacted by health care services. It's not like my grandmother didn't know better. She still chose the path she took. But, she died from diabetes complications (specifically, heart disease secondary to the diabetes, so she may have hit more than one category!), not lack of a quality medical care system.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
To go back to a part of your post - quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
If you compare the capabilities of the US medical care sector, I'd be willing to bet the US comes out at the top of that list. That's having the "best" health care.
Costs aside, these figures don't show that at all.
Compared to the UK, it is worse for all except one category.
Do you think that private insurance healthcare in the US is the best?
And you seriously think that social healthcare is not one of the best available?
Jeeezz.... The figures speak for themselves.
You just jumped the shark. The private insurance health care system and the public insurance health care system accesses the same providers. The source of payment is different, but the caregivers are the same. So, in the US, private insurance health care and "social" health care are the same care.
And that is why the US system is all fucked up - as I have said many times in these debates.
Social healthcare needs to kick out the insurance companies completely. Otherwise, as you said, it is just shifting the paymaster, not the attacking the root of the problem - the profiteering all along the line by private insurance companies.
Again, no matter how you want to slice the cake, every other OECD country that is not majorly ruled by insurance companies and has social healthcare, beats the US hands down in just about every major healthcare indicator - regardless of costs. Add the ridiculous costs for inferior US healthcare and that is just a slap across the face with a stale fish - it really stinks.
Yep, and those indicators aren't necessarily indicative of the health care system involved.
|
|
|
|
