Quote:
Originally Posted by janh
(Post 1259960)
tater, side note:
I usually agree with your statements, but with the exception of the pubic health insurance discussion. I live and teach at Harvard for 3 years now, but I am German, so I have high expectations for social security and health standards.
Everyone I know here around Boston, particularly my US friends, agree that the system in the US is flawed and needs to be brought UP to standards for everyone. (though that "test set" of friends, etc is probably all limited to people from well-above average education and but few friends from the blue-collar set, which, however, would probably benefit a lot, too)
The simple truth is that medical and insurance screws you over, if you look at the statistics and see what you pay for the same "quality" (of service) that Europeans receive for half the cost (leaving more in their pockets). Why? Because if everyone pays his fair share, rates will drop. Like huge sales will drop the price of SHV (oh, sad, how hypothetical).
The numbers are there, the result undisputable, but of course "inconvenient" for those who benefit from it. This, and related "lobbyism" seems to influence politics in the USA significantly (think of the leaky gun-laws/huge police apparatus, the situation in iraq... blunder after blunder the USA dumps tax billions in). Certain factions more than others (oops, this democracy only has two parties -- time for an upgrade...)
|
Hey,
my wife is a PhD bio-science person who then went to med school. (2 doctorates). I am well immersed in healthcare.
The simple reality is that the US system as it is RIGHT NOW, warts and all produces better outcomes than anywhere else.
Breast cancer mortality over incidence (US have very high incidence) is half what it is in the UK. Half. That means half as many people dying who are diagnosed. That is 100% a measure of quality of medical care since without treatment they will almost all die. Similar numbers fall out for prostate cancer. Again, a treatable but deadly disease. Those stats include people who die without ever getting treatment, BTW.
Very few people don;t have insurance.
BTW, since something over 90% of lifetime medical expense is incurred in the very last months of life, any public medical policy that does not massively limit aggressive care for people at grave risk of death saves not enough money to matter. 90+% spent in the last 6 months of life—by definition ineffective care.
It's great to cut those costs unless it's YOU asked to take one for the team (since a tiny % of those people get the expensive care—and it works).
Average lifespan, and other nonsensical metrics are hopelessly confounded by lifestyle, etc (lard-ass americans skewing the results, etc :) ) |
