Re: AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEM FAR BETTER FOR YOU THAN THE SOCIALIZED BRITISH VERSION

From: OccamMan (sorry_at_nospam.com)
Date: 03/09/05 

Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:24:39 -0500

Well, I've clearly shown that US health care costs far, far more than
that of any other country. And I've not seen anything that indicates
that we have better care - our obvious indicators are all poor. If we
spend twice as much, something ought to jump out that screams "better
care here!", but it doesn't seem to exist.

As to "innovations and techniques": How 'bout providing a list of
proven helpful innovations and/or techniques that are generally
available in the US, but not in other first world countries? I know of
none. I do know of a fair number of techniques that are or were
available primarily in the US that are either unhelpful or outright
harmful. (Those crazies in other first world countries practice that
dagblammit "evidence-based" medicine, which sucks all of the fun out of
life, eh? Prove that something helps before we do it? Ridiculous!
Blasphemy!)

Yes, other countries put necessary procedures ahead of elective
procedures. Where's the problem with that? At least when folks need
help, they get it quick; unlike, for example, a friend of mine whose
appendix burst while traveling to a second hospital because the first
wouldn't honor his insurance. That doesn't happen in the rest of the
first world.

I'm glad that your MIL was able to quickly get a new knee; however, in
the grand scheme of things, most people would think that waiting time
for a new knee is a reasonable tradeoff for a system that prevents burst
appendices.

BTW, who paid for your MIL's knee? Was it... Medicare?

Your saying that the "per capita thingy" is a red herring is silly,
silly. What counts in a civilized society is how we do as a nation, not
just the opportunities available to a select few.

> Your probably a big fan of the Canadian system so here is a specific
> example pertaining to low birth weight (2500 grams or lower):
> African-American babies are more likely not to survive in comparison
> to Canadian babies only at the top of the range. IOW, the lower the
> birth weight the better off you will be born to an African-American
> family than a Canadian family.

Interesting info: may we have the source please?

>> Speaking of Canada, what do you think is the bigger killer, cancer or
>> HIV? Which do you think gets more funding from the gov't run plan

Obviously cancer is a bigger killer. But HIV is 100% preventable, while
   it's not clear that much can be done to change outcome in most
cancers; survival rates are increasing, but the increase may be
explained by earlier detection (e.g., you live three years longer
because it's detected three years earlier.) Even lung cancer is weird:
I understand that Japan has the highest rate of smokers and the lowest
rate of lung cancer, very odd. In all, I'm guessing that spending on
HIV, if we include prevention, probably yields a lot more bang for the
buck - but that's a guess. Anyway, what's the answer and what's your point?

Dave King wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 22:55:39 -0500, OccamMan <sorry@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>You said overwelming evidence of half the cost and better outcomes:
>>>>Prove it.
>>
>
> You still havent proved anything.
>
>
>
>>Healthcare spending as a % of GDP for some major developed nations:
>>
>>US: 15%:
>>Switzerland: 11%
>>Germany: 11%
>>France: 10%
>>Canada: 10%
>>Italy: 9%
>>UK: 8%
>>Spain: 7%
>>Poland: 6%
>>
>>The entire chart is at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/3/62/31938359.pdf.
>>(The OECD is generally considered to be the best source for these types
>>of statistics: it's sole job is to develop statistics for use by its
>>members (pretty much all "first-world" countries) to normalize things).
>>
>>Looking at this chart, you'll see that we spend far and away the highest
>>% of GDP on health care of the 25 or so countries. Looking at the next
>>chart in the OECD document, you'll see that the US is also number two in
>>the rate at which spending is increasing - looks like the rest of the
>>world ain't catching up with us soon.
>
>
> We also lead in innovations and techniques, which has a price.
>
>
>>If you look further in this document, you'll see that we also have fewer
>>physicians per capita than than do most developed nations - which is a
>>hint as to the poor medical care we get in the US.
>
>
> I guess you skipped the chart on waiting time for elective procedures.
>
> My MIL had a knee replacement in December. The only thing that kept
> her from doing it the next day, after she finally decided to undergo
> the procedure, was arranging coverage and help at her business- under
> a week.
>
> A critical situation: I evaluated a fella in the ER to remove his bad
> teeth. He came in very short of breath. 10 hours after he came into
> the ER he had a new mitral valve.
>
> The per capita thingy is a red-herring. we are talking about
> efficiency and thats what you get here.
>
>
>>Take a look at the US Government's official list of life expectancies:
>>
>>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html
>>
>>we are 46the in the world, behind virtually every other developed country.
>
>
> Explain to me what this has solely to do with healthcare?
>
>
>>Next let's turn to infant mortality:
>>
>>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
>>
>>Once again, our ranking is terrible.
>>
>>If our health care were good, we'd likely have good numbers for life
>>expectancy and infant mortality - but we don't. In fact, we have awful
>>numbers. Our bad showing could be due to some other factor - however,
>>the US has the lowest prevelance of smokers in the first world, which
>>should tend to make our numbers even better.
>>
>
>
> Infant mortality is a relative measure of healthcare performance but
> has a direct link to low birth weight. It is measured for many
> reasons, including; easy to count, greater economic significance of
> foregone production, less influence on behavioural decisions unlike
> adult mortality & lastly, gov't policies would seem to have a greater
> impact.
>
> Real increases in GDP, education & literacy, woman in the work force,
> & greater quantities of medical services have a positive affect on
> infant mortality. You hinted 'due to some other factor', which is key
> in any of these charts. Regional specifics and influences are what
> keeps thses numbers lower. Something specific rather than relative
> comparisons, which these charts point to the latter. Diet & drug use
> are two specifics and are notably a problem in the US not included in
> this analysis that directly affect birth weight.
>
> Your probably a big fan of the Canadian system so here is a specific
> example pertaining to low birth weight (2500 grams or lower):
> African-American babies are more likely not to survive in comparison
> to Canadian babies only at the top of the range. IOW, the lower the
> birth weight the better off you will be born to an African-American
> family than a Canadian family.
>
> Speaking of Canada, what do you think is the bigger killer, cancer or
> HIV? Which do you think gets more funding from the gov't run plan?

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEM FAR BETTER FOR YOU THAN THE SOCIALIZED BRITISH VERSION
    ... >Looking at this chart, you'll see that we spend far and away the highest ... >% of GDP on health care of the 25 or so countries. ... >expectancy and infant mortality - but we don't. ... this analysis that directly affect birth weight. ...
    (sci.med.dentistry)
  • Re: Camp David meeting
    ... pay more for health care because they do more. ... the US, unlike other countries, like Japan, UK, France, Germany. ... Just consider the fact is the Dems took control of congress because ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • PRESIDENT KEEPS SHOWING HOW TO BE HEALTY IN AMERICA
    ... THAT THERE IS NO MAGIC IN CANADA AND OTHER COUNTRIES WITH CENTRALIZED ... The Grass Is Not Always Greener: A Look at National Health Care ... Critics of the U.S. health care system frequently point to other ...
    (soc.culture.usa)
  • Re: Camp David meeting
    ... pay more for health care because they do more. ... the US, unlike other countries, like Japan, UK, France, Germany. ... Just consider the fact is the Dems took control of congress ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • OT- Take this you European socialist liberals.. U.S. Cancer Survivability Rates Higher Than
    ... Something in that parody talked about health care. ... Europe in getting new medicines to cancer patients. ... men the proportions still alive at five years in the same countries ... Socialists want control. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)