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

From: Dr Steve (nospam_at_home.net)
Date: 03/09/05 

Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 11:50:47 GMT

One question..................... when you need emergency heart bypass
surgery, which country do you want it done in? 

-- 
~+--~+--~+--~+--~+--
Stephen Mancuso, D.D.S.
Troy, Michigan, USA
....................................................
This posting is intended for informational or conversational purposes only.
Always seek the opinion of a licensed dental professional before acting on
the advice or opinion expressed here.  Only a dentist who has examined you
in person can diagnose your problems and make decisions which will affect
your health.
......................
"OccamMan" <sorry@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:cfKdnQYK1Zrr8bPfRVn-3Q@speakeasy.net...
> 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: Is the U.S. Falling Behind Europe?
    ... >>Most developed nations have better health care systems than ... the US rate exceeds that of other countries. ... > thee diseases are better (especially cancer) in the US than elsewhere. ...
    (sci.econ)
  • *Article: Third of Cancers Caused by Modifiable Risk Factors
    ... Tobacco leads the list, responsible for about 21 percent of all cancers, said Majid Ezzati, an assistant professor of international health at the Harvard School of Public Health. ... As the final two entries on the list show, the risk factors for cancer that can be altered vary widely from country to country and culture to culture, Ezzati said. ... The leading causes of cancer deaths in high-income countries such as the United States and Canada were smoking, ...
    (alt.support.stop-smoking)
  • Re: Half of Serious Swine Flu Cases were Healthy
    ... Health Professional: not yet rated ... particular Avirus, which has not circulated in humans before, ... countries with large numbers of cases are those ... "Influenza pandemics, whether moderate or severe, are remarkable ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Half of Serious Swine Flu Cases were Healthy
    ... The World Health Organization announced it has raised the level ... particular Avirus, which has not circulated in humans before, ... countries with large numbers of cases are those ... "Influenza pandemics, whether moderate or severe, are remarkable ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Re: Half of Serious Swine Flu Cases were Healthy
    ... The World Health Organization announced it has raised the level ... particular Avirus, which has not circulated in humans before, ... countries with large numbers of cases are those ... "Influenza pandemics, whether moderate or severe, are remarkable ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)