quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
You claimed that the 2 parties couldn't agree on immigration yet the start-up visa law is bi-partisan support so why doesn't it (at least) get passed? That would be a major step (the best and only one that matters to most immigrant entrepreneurs) as far as immigration reform goes, imo..

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
US has 7th Highest Cancer Rate in the World

quote:

Experts Say Lifestyle Changes Needed to Reduce Nation's Cancer Rates

Cancer Survival Rates Improving Across Europe, But Still Lagging Behind United States

quote:

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:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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.

No, it wasn't. It was just a random example, nothing else.
Yet you chose to pick it as a real statistic - which I didn't claim it was. [8|]

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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.

For just one category - I would agree with you.
But pick a dozen or more categories where the US don't fare so well??
That's a different ball of wax and does make a good overall comparison.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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.

It's a per-capita spend, so the $'s and the dollar spend rate doesn't come into it.
It's a fair comparison across the board.
If you can't see that, you need to go back to school.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
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?

I did it to show that your example of an individual case that bucks the overall trend is no more than a strawman.
Yes, but again, it's a per-unit comparison, not a total-numbers comparison.
So in that sense, it is a fair way to make equal comparisons across the board.
A sheer numbers comparison wouldn't make any sense at all - which is what you are insinuating.
If the number is 'per 100,000 of population', then the actual numbers of population don't matter - it is per unit (equal unit across the board) so that you can make that direct comparison.
C'mon Desi, you aren't that much of a dunce to throw that red herring into the mix!! [:-]

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
US has 7th Highest Cancer Rate in the World

quote:

Experts Say Lifestyle Changes Needed to Reduce Nation's Cancer Rates

Cancer Survival Rates Improving Across Europe, But Still Lagging Behind United States

quote:

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?

Absolutely!! [:D]
And I acknowledged that ONE fact in my post.
But the US fails on all other points.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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.

But you can't spout one individual case that bucks the general overall trend - that's a nonsense.
Everyone can do that. That's why these stats are general.
Obviously not everyone fits into that box, but the general figures count for the majority - not everyone.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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.

Umm... yes, they are.
Another example (and don't try to use this as a real-case scenario!) -
If one country fails to treat X problem because their healthcare isn't up to scratch as another country, their stats will show a higher mortality rate than the latter.
That's the whole point of general stats.
It shows where some product (in this case, healthcare) isn't matching those of other countries given the same criteria and measuring standards.
So yes, mortality rates when measuring how a certain healthcare system deals with a problem is a valid comparison of the healthcare system in question.

quote:

Lets take a real-life example....
Ebola deaths
3,161 Liberia
1,660 Sierra Leone
1,366 Guinea
8 Nigeria
The WHO has declared the outbreaks in Nigeria and Senegal officially over, as there have been no new cases reported since 5 September.
Medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), which employs thousands of staff across West Africa battling the disease, confirmed this week that Liberia has seen a significant reduction in the number of new Ebola cases.
Liberia, the worst-hit country of the Ebola outbreak with more than 3,000 deaths, reported that two-thirds of the 696 beds in the country's treatment centres were empty.
MSF warned that the disease could "flare up" again, pointing to Guinea, where the number of cases is rising again despite two significant lulls.
Regardless of the numbers, it could be argued that Liberia was the lowest of these when it came to healthcare stats because it had more cases and more deaths.
But... one of those stats shows that two thirds of their Ebola beds are now empty whereas Guinea's problem is still rising because their healthcare system (even with all the outside help) cannot cope with the problem.
If you measured the mortality rate 'per 1,000' cases, Guinea would still come out worse than Liberia even though Liberia had more cases and more deaths from Ebola.
By using normalized figures, you are able to make direct comparisons and can say that Guinea's healthcare system is worse than that of Liberia.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

You seem to get it, but the stats you were trotting out (except infant mortality rates) weren't comparing the number of deaths to the number of cases, but the number of deaths to the population. If the US had quadruple the number of heart attacks per 100,000 population, but only double the number of deaths from heart attack per 100,000 population, what would that indicate?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You seem to get it, but the stats you were trotting out (except infant mortality rates) weren't comparing the number of deaths to the number of cases, but the number of deaths to the population. If the US had quadruple the number of heart attacks per 100,000 population, but only double the number of deaths from heart attack per 100,000 population, what would that indicate?

Some could say that being visited more often by a general practitioner, and having access to cheeper medications, would prevent many hearth attacks to happen in first place. It's part of the problem I pointed out earlier, you consider health care as a personal issue while freedomdwarf1 considers it as a social issue, so for us health care works as an infrastructure that provides well being to the people for you it seems more like a shop where you buy a cure when needed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You seem to get it, but the stats you were trotting out (except infant mortality rates) weren't comparing the number of deaths to the number of cases, but the number of deaths to the population. If the US had quadruple the number of heart attacks per 100,000 population, but only double the number of deaths from heart attack per 100,000 population, what would that indicate?

Some could say that being visited more often by a general practitioner, and having access to cheeper medications, would prevent many hearth attacks to happen in first place. It's part of the problem I pointed out earlier, you consider health care as a personal issue while freedomdwarf1 considers it as a social issue, so for us health care works as an infrastructure that provides well being to the people for you it seems more like a shop where you buy a cure when needed.

Are you forced to see a GP, or is that still a choice? Outside of being put on medication, how does seeing a Dr. reduce the risk of heart attacks?

If the cost of seeing a Dr. was lower (before insurance), wouldn't that make it more likely someone would go see a Dr.? Not only would the cost of seeing a Dr. be less, if you didn't have insurance, but insurance would cost less, too, making it that much more affordable to see a Dr. on a regular basis. Cheaper medicines means it's more affordable, without insurance, and insurance is more affordable, too.

What you can't see, is that affordable care, that is, care that is less expensive, helps everyone, not just "the rich" or whatever segment of the population you think I'm trying to spare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: starkmatters

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You seem to get it, but the stats you were trotting out (except infant mortality rates) weren't comparing the number of deaths to the number of cases, but the number of deaths to the population. If the US had quadruple the number of heart attacks per 100,000 population, but only double the number of deaths from heart attack per 100,000 population, what would that indicate?

Some could say that being visited more often by a general practitioner, and having access to cheeper medications, would prevent many hearth attacks to happen in first place. It's part of the problem I pointed out earlier, you consider health care as a personal issue while freedomdwarf1 considers it as a social issue, so for us health care works as an infrastructure that provides well being to the people for you it seems more like a shop where you buy a cure when needed.

Are you forced to see a GP, or is that still a choice? Outside of being put on medication, how does seeing a Dr. reduce the risk of heart attacks?
If the cost of seeing a Dr. was lower (before insurance), wouldn't that make it more likely someone would go see a Dr.? Not only would the cost of seeing a Dr. be less, if you didn't have insurance, but insurance would cost less, too, making it that much more affordable to see a Dr. on a regular basis. Cheaper medicines means it's more affordable, without insurance, and insurance is more affordable, too.
What you can't see, is that affordable care, that is, care that is less expensive, helps everyone, not just "the rich" or whatever segment of the population you think I'm trying to spare.

You are assuming that "more affordable care" would be of the same quality and effectiveness. There is actually very little data on cost vs results derived using consistent definitions that allow valid comparisons. Eg comparing life expectancies across countries or infant mortality data is impossible, the former because it is too high level, encompasses many factors unrelated to healthcare and ignores sociological/medical data, and the latter because there is no consistent reporting of infant deaths from country to country. There is also no measurement of the cost of delays in diagnosis and/or treatment, nor the financial benefits of faster recovery due to less invasive but highcost technology dependent procedures.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
You claimed that the 2 parties couldn't agree on immigration yet the start-up visa law is bi-partisan support so why doesn't it (at least) get passed? That would be a major step (the best and only one that matters to most immigrant entrepreneurs) as far as immigration reform goes, imo..

It certainly could mean that the Democrats liked parts of the bill, and Republicans like parts of the bill, but that there wasn't enough bipartisan support for enough of the bill for it to pass.

If a bill contains X, Y and Z, but the GOP likes X & Y, and won't compromise on Z, and the Democrats like Y & Z, but won't compromise on X, the bill won't get passed, even though it has bipartisan support. And, in a case over bills with X, Y, & Z components, each election will feature one party bashing the other over the bill not getting passed, based on whatever portion was most popular with it's intended voters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: starkmatters

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You seem to get it, but the stats you were trotting out (except infant mortality rates) weren't comparing the number of deaths to the number of cases, but the number of deaths to the population. If the US had quadruple the number of heart attacks per 100,000 population, but only double the number of deaths from heart attack per 100,000 population, what would that indicate?

Some could say that being visited more often by a general practitioner, and having access to cheeper medications, would prevent many hearth attacks to happen in first place. It's part of the problem I pointed out earlier, you consider health care as a personal issue while freedomdwarf1 considers it as a social issue, so for us health care works as an infrastructure that provides well being to the people for you it seems more like a shop where you buy a cure when needed.

Are you forced to see a GP, or is that still a choice? Outside of being put on medication, how does seeing a Dr. reduce the risk of heart attacks?
If the cost of seeing a Dr. was lower (before insurance), wouldn't that make it more likely someone would go see a Dr.? Not only would the cost of seeing a Dr. be less, if you didn't have insurance, but insurance would cost less, too, making it that much more affordable to see a Dr. on a regular basis. Cheaper medicines means it's more affordable, without insurance, and insurance is more affordable, too.
What you can't see, is that affordable care, that is, care that is less expensive, helps everyone, not just "the rich" or whatever segment of the population you think I'm trying to spare.

You are assuming that "more affordable care" would be of the same quality and effectiveness. There is actually very little data on cost vs results derived using consistent definitions that allow valid comparisons. Eg comparing life expectancies across countries or infant mortality data is impossible, the former because it is too high level, encompasses many factors unrelated to healthcare and ignores sociological/medical data, and the latter because there is no consistent reporting of infant deaths from country to country. There is also no measurement of the cost of delays in diagnosis and/or treatment, nor the financial benefits of faster recovery due to less invasive but highcost technology dependent procedures.

A comparison of costs of medical services/procedures between countries will show we pay much higher costs for the same procedures and services. Is a basic MRI in the US really 2-4x better than in European countries? Are medications in the US somehow different from the medications sold by the same pharmaceutical companies (same brand name) in Europe?

When you compare the same procedures and services, apples to apples, we are still spending a lot more in the US. I'm not proposing putting some sort of price control to effect the affordability. I oppose that.

Welcome to the boards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444
You claimed that the 2 parties couldn't agree on immigration yet the start-up visa law is bi-partisan support so why doesn't it (at least) get passed? That would be a major step (the best and only one that matters to most immigrant entrepreneurs) as far as immigration reform goes, imo..

It certainly could mean that the Democrats liked parts of the bill, and Republicans like parts of the bill, but that there wasn't enough bipartisan support for enough of the bill for it to pass.
If a bill contains X, Y and Z, but the GOP likes X & Y, and won't compromise on Z, and the Democrats like Y & Z, but won't compromise on X, the bill won't get passed, even though it has bipartisan support. And, in a case over bills with X, Y, & Z components, each election will feature one party bashing the other over the bill not getting passed, based on whatever portion was most popular with it's intended voters.

don't you think that is pretty sad? its been brought forward with various changes 3 times, I believe.. Americans are the ones electing these morons.. so the blame also rests with you ("you", as in American voters), doesn't it? that is why your country is going down the tube and failing taxpayers and tomorrow's taxpayers.. Future generations are screwed here.. I feel sorry for them.. the smart ones will leave the US for jobs and starting businesses offshore..

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: starkmatters

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You seem to get it, but the stats you were trotting out (except infant mortality rates) weren't comparing the number of deaths to the number of cases, but the number of deaths to the population. If the US had quadruple the number of heart attacks per 100,000 population, but only double the number of deaths from heart attack per 100,000 population, what would that indicate?

Some could say that being visited more often by a general practitioner, and having access to cheeper medications, would prevent many hearth attacks to happen in first place. It's part of the problem I pointed out earlier, you consider health care as a personal issue while freedomdwarf1 considers it as a social issue, so for us health care works as an infrastructure that provides well being to the people for you it seems more like a shop where you buy a cure when needed.

Are you forced to see a GP, or is that still a choice? Outside of being put on medication, how does seeing a Dr. reduce the risk of heart attacks?
If the cost of seeing a Dr. was lower (before insurance), wouldn't that make it more likely someone would go see a Dr.? Not only would the cost of seeing a Dr. be less, if you didn't have insurance, but insurance would cost less, too, making it that much more affordable to see a Dr. on a regular basis. Cheaper medicines means it's more affordable, without insurance, and insurance is more affordable, too.
What you can't see, is that affordable care, that is, care that is less expensive, helps everyone, not just "the rich" or whatever segment of the population you think I'm trying to spare.

You are assuming that "more affordable care" would be of the same quality and effectiveness. There is actually very little data on cost vs results derived using consistent definitions that allow valid comparisons. Eg comparing life expectancies across countries or infant mortality data is impossible, the former because it is too high level, encompasses many factors unrelated to healthcare and ignores sociological/medical data, and the latter because there is no consistent reporting of infant deaths from country to country. There is also no measurement of the cost of delays in diagnosis and/or treatment, nor the financial benefits of faster recovery due to less invasive but highcost technology dependent procedures.

A comparison of costs of medical services/procedures between countries will show we pay much higher costs for the same procedures and services. Is a basic MRI in the US really 2-4x better than in European countries? Are medications in the US somehow different from the medications sold by the same pharmaceutical companies (same brand name) in Europe?
When you compare the same procedures and services, apples to apples, we are still spending a lot more in the US. I'm not proposing putting some sort of price control to effect the affordability. I oppose that.

Welcome to the boards.

I'd like to know what you propose.
you kind of dodged the point I was making, seeing a doctor is of couerse facoltative unless you have to engage in certain activities like sports for example but when the visit costs you nothing and your doctor practice is in proximity of your house there is a higher chance that you'll see him/her more often than in other circumstances, but again that was not the point I was doing, I was just pointing out the different attitude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
and if someone needs a surgery that at market price is more expensive than how much he pays in taxes in a year?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
if it's paid by taxes how is this different from a public system if not just by being more expensive as you pay the market price?

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
One very straightforward and simple way of reducing healthcare costs is to increase the number of training places available for medical students thereby increasing the supply of doctors and specialists. Currently artificial constraints on the number of entrants into the profession(s) create artificial monopolies designed to maintain bloated fee structures. It's interesting that proponents of free market medicine rarely (if ever) focus on this particular monopoly, which really ought to be offensive to their free market sensibilities
A sensible approach would target candidates from marginalised communities where general health standards are lower and demands are higher. This would tend to make healthcare more affordable to those who need it most, and more effective in both preventing and treating health issues as it targets the areas of greatest need.