10 Facts About American Health Care: What do YOU think?

[Mountain-God]

Originally Posted by Kerozine

I highly doubt any of these countries would even consider a US-style health care system as an alternative to what they currently have..

The numbers smack of selective and manipulative reporting.

The US system is commonly referred to as an example of what not to be - despite constant clamouring for change.

New Zealand is currently undergoing a historical revision - where the new government reinvents the nation in a new and dire image in order to justify it's hard-on for privatising prisons, accident compensation, and health-care.

Trouble is, they keep being caught making up numbers and even reports from the USA and International Monetary Fund poopoo their policies interesting times.

Spend less on guns and more on education and health - that's my advice to Americans

[GinandTonic]

Prostate cancer is an interesting example. According to a Radio 4 special last weekend on if the UK should have prostate screening the evidence is iffy. Something like 97% of the positive results would not result in a fatility from prostate cancer. Therefore "survival" rates for nations with screening are wacked. Hell if you choose an old enough sample group most men will have (if you'll pardon the term) buggered prostates almost none of which will kill them, since they are in their 90's.

So "survival" rates for prostate cancer are just about completely dependant on screening which in turn does almost nothing to actually extend life, while significantly reducing the quality if it.

[Kerozine]

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

Is that what you get with your typical HMO? Absolutely not. Claim denied.

I bet you didn't know a liver transplant was considered to be elective surgery in many cases. I know a thirtysomething guy who finally got enough donations to pay for his. He had to come up with something like $40K out of his own pocket to pay the difference between the actual cost and what his policy would pay as he slowly died...

What kind of regulatory oversight is there in the US concerning health insurance claims? Or are they bound solely by the agreed contractual terms and you'd have to go to court to argue for it?

I've watched the Sicko movie by Michael Moore, but never did fully trust the veracity of his reported claims about the US health care system, though anecdotes help very much in cementing this as unfortunate fact.

[contre]

My personal experience of having lived in the US and Canada is that while the system here is strained, underfunded, understaffed amongst many other things, I wouldn't leave it for what I had in the US. My hospital might not have six-figure crystal sculpture in the entry or the latest and greatest colonoscopy cameras that make me feel like I'm walking on the beach, but it does have what I need to keep me and my wife and my family healthy. I don't have to skip a doctor's appointment because I can't pay for it. I don't have an extra step between triage nurse and doctor to hand over a host of financial details.

[Formaldehyde]

Originally Posted by Bill3000

As much as I'd like to pounce a right-wing think tank, wouldn't it be more productive to debunk or discredit the OP instead of the ad hominems?

I don't know about you, but the first thing I want to know about a website advocating a position is what other positions they advocate. And by looking at their topics of interest and their funding, their own POV and agenda usually becomes quite evident. You can call it an 'ad hominem' by not addressing the issues, but how many times do you have to debunk the same deliberate misrepresentation of the facts by the same group of people with the same obvious agenda before you detect a pattern?

[civ_king]

by Scott Atlas

Medical care in the United States is derided as miserable compared to health care systems in the rest of the developed world. Economists, government officials, insurers and academics alike are beating the drum for a far larger government role in health care. Much of the public assumes their arguments are sound because the calls for change are so ubiquitous and the topic so complex. However, before turning to government as the solution, some unheralded facts about America's health care system should be considered.

Fact No. 1: Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.[1] Breast cancer mortality is 52 percent higher in Germany than in the United States, and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom. Prostate cancer mortality is 604 percent higher in the U.K. and 457 percent higher in Norway. The mortality rate for colorectal cancer among British men and women is about 40 percent higher.

I have a question, if they prevent it most cases, so you are only left with the generally fatal versions, why does that count against them?

Fact No. 2: Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.[2] Breast cancer mortality is 9 percent higher, prostate cancer is 184 percent higher and colon cancer mortality among men is about 10 percent higher than in the United States.

again?

Fact No. 3: Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.

If they cut down on it through diet doesn't this point lose relevancy?

Fact No. 4: Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.[4] Take the proportion of the appropriate-age population groups who have received recommended tests for breast, cervical, prostate and colon cancer:

* Nine of 10 middle-aged American women (89 percent) have had a mammogram, compared to less than three-fourths of Canadians (72 percent).

isn't this mostly relevant to old people? and, what do they define as middle-aged?

* Nearly all American women (96 percent) have had a pap smear, compared to less than 90 percent of Canadians.

?

* More than half of American men (54 percent) have had a PSA test, compared to less than 1 in 6 Canadians (16 percent).

addressed by others

* Nearly one-third of Americans (30 percent) have had a colonoscopy, compared with less than 1 in 20 Canadians (5 percent).

addressed by others

Fact No. 5: Lower income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians. Twice as many American seniors with below-median incomes self-report "excellent" health compared to Canadian seniors (11.7 percent versus 5.8 percent). Conversely, white Canadian young adults with below-median incomes are 20 percent more likely than lower income Americans to describe their health as "fair or poor."[5]

self reporting bias?

Fact No. 6: Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the U.K. Canadian and British patients wait about twice as long - sometimes more than a year - to see a specialist, to have elective surgery like hip replacements or to get radiation treatment for cancer.[6] All told, 827,429 people are waiting for some type of procedure in Canada.[7] In England, nearly 1.8 million people are waiting for a hospital admission or outpatient treatment.[8]

see a specialist? almost all the time doctors in the US they refer you to a specialist simply because they don't have enough time...

Fact No. 7: People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."[9]

the other 30% have been to a hospital in the US lol...

[Perfection]

Originally Posted by Bigfoot3814

So, what do you make of this?

I think I feel a song coming on...


Moderator Action: Spam
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/faq.php?faq=cfc_forum_rules

[civ_king]

Epic Perfection...

[El_Machinae]

As a Canadian, yes, we're dissatisfied. It's the nature of the way news works, we only hear about the bad things. As well, because we're covered, we complain about wait times. If we didn't have wait times, we'd complain about cost.

So let's talk about cost. We spend way less on healthcare. Our government spends less. Our citizens pay way less.

The Canadian system can absolutely be rehauled, too, since it was designed ~40 years ago. We've learned a lot since.

[Zelig]

Canadians have access to everything that Americans do, they just have to drive a couple hours to the US, and pay the same as Americans.

On the other hand, Americans can't drive up to Canada and have our government pay for their healthcare.

[Luckmann]

I think it sucks compared to the health care I'm going to give my bears in Elemental: War of Magic.

[Gigaz]

People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed. More than 70 percent of German, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and British adults say their health system needs either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."

I wonder if anyone still believes in the "people are disappointed"-argument. Based on that, you can always find a majority for a smaller goverment, nationalized banks, cheaper health care, better health care, no war, action against terrorism, etc.

[Bamspeedy]

If they cut down on it through diet doesn't this point lose relevancy?

[sarcasm]
Blasphemy! Don't you know all health statistics point towards the efficiency of the health care system and hospitals, and that personal lifestyle choices have nothing to do with that!
[/sarcasm]

Infant mortality for example, well gee, the US has triple the teenage pregnancy of many other countries, don't you think that might affect infant mortality a little bit? Fertility drugs increase the chances of twins, triplets, etc, and that increases the chances of complications. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that socialized medicine will reduce teenage pregnancy or convince couples that normally couldn't have children to not have them.

I have a question, if they prevent it most cases, so you are only left with the generally fatal versions, why does that count against them?

Same can be said for stats that says the US does worse in some things than other countries. While the 'testing for everything possible' is often a waste of money, it helps when they do find something.

[Masada]

Originally Posted by Bigfoot3814

Fact #7 took me by surprise. European, Canadian, and Australian posters on CFC have definitely expressed approval of their health care systems, and I thought for the most part these people were satisfied with them.

Come to the Northern Territory of Australia, you will not find many people who if given the chance will not fly interstate for treatment, you go into the major hospital here and die from benign tumors.

Australia and New Zealands hospital systems are hunks of crap, anyone who says otherwise is a fool. They are the result of the States ineptitude, the Federal Governments parsimony and ineptitude and all the fun of political machinations that goes with them. I reserve my up-most contempt for the Health Department here and in New Zealand.

[Bill3000]

Blasphemy! Don't you know all health statistics point towards the efficiency of the health care system and hospitals, and that personal lifestyle choices have nothing to do with that!

Prevention of poor lifestyle choices is completely relevant to the quality of health care.

Same can be said for stats that says the US does worse in some things than other countries. While the 'testing for everything possible' is often a waste of money, it helps when they do find something.

Except the "waste of money" point is completely relevant to the issue of health care costs when it doesn't particularly increase the quality of healthcare?

[Cutlass]

Lifestyle choices matter, but are typically not represented fairly in health care discussion. For example the statements that Americans are fat and lazy ignores that most nations with better health care results than the US also have higher, up to twice as much, smoking. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/he...-daily-smokers And a number of nations with superior health care results than the US have higher per capita alcohol consumption. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/fo...mption-current Both of which impact life span and health costs similar to obesity. It also overlooks the fact that preventive health care could have an impact on obesity through properly educating people of the dangers.

[Bamspeedy]

Prevention of poor lifestyle choices is completely relevant to the quality of health care.

So a hospital is going to convince someone to stop eating cheezy-poofs and get out and excercise if the government picks up the tab instead of an insurance agency?

And a number of nations with superior health care results than the US have higher per capita alcohol consumption.

Yearly alcohol consumption isn't very accurate. There is a big difference between drinking 14 beers one night a week to drinking 2 beers a day (1 glass of wine a day is actually healthy for you).

http://www.docguide.com/news/content...256D270055E2E3

Am I wrong in thinking the average Frechman consumes a glass of wine with his meal much more often than the average American does?

[Masquerouge]

As I've said multiple times, the question is not about the quality of the health care, the question is with its cost, and its coverage.

Healthcare in the US is of good quality. However, it is:

a. a lot more expansive than healthcare in other countries:

http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm





b. not very good at covering everybody.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/health.../healthins.htm

[suiraclaw]

I'd like to put a big emphasis on the fact that this article only details a very small part of the diseases around. Cancer is an important killer, but hospitals and doctors do a lot more then curing cancer and helping people with chronic diseases.

Also adressing point 10: Yet there are several other countries with a good health care system that invest a bigger part of their GDP in medicine research (like Belgium IIRC). They also get good results and are just as cost efficient, but because of the huge difference in GDP it doesn't compare. So that argument is a bit flawed.

Lastly, 2 other remarks:
- The main difference between the healthcare system of the USA and the one used most often in Europe is the costprice. Medicines (and just almost everything related to healthcare) cost a whole lot more in the USA for example.
- Cancer doesn't solely depend on the level of healthcare. Pollution, genes, habits, living circumstances and other factors have a big influence as well.

[Theige]

Spending per-capita statistics in regards to health-care are absolutely retarded.

The top 1% in America accounts for something like 22% of all health-care spending (not exactly sure on the numbers), skewing the statistics substantially.

Also, take out all the darkies, and the health of our population that is truly comparable to European populations is definitely equal to, and probably surpasses that of our European brethren.

Comparisons to individual European countries are dumb.