Do those who Parrot the Claim that US has Best Health Care believe their own BS?
Quote:
We have the greatest health care system in the world. Sure, it has flaws, but it saves lives in ways that other countries can only dream of. Abroad, people sit on waiting lists for months, so why should we squander billions of dollars to mess with a system that is the envy of the world? As Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama puts it, President Obama’s plans amount to “the first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known.”
That self-aggrandizing delusion may be the single greatest myth in the health care debate. In fact, America’s health care system is worse than Slov—er, oops, more on that later.
The United States ranks 31st in life expectancy (tied with Kuwait and Chile), according to the latest World Health Organization figures. We rank 37th in infant mortality (partly because of many premature births) and 34th in maternal mortality. A child in the United States is two-and-a-half times as likely to die by age 5 as in Singapore or Sweden, and an American woman is 11 times as likely to die in childbirth as a woman in Ireland.
Canadians live longer than Americans do after kidney transplants and after dialysis, and that may be typical of cross-border differences. One review examined 10 studies of how the American and Canadian systems dealt with various medical issues. The United States did better in two, Canada did better in five and in three they were similar or it was difficult to determine.
Yet another study, cited in a recent report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute, looked at how well 19 developed countries succeeded in avoiding “preventable deaths,” such as those where a disease could be cured or forestalled. What Senator Shelby called “the best health care system” ranked in last place.
The figures are even worse for members of minority groups. An African-American in New Orleans has a shorter life expectancy than the average person in Vietnam or Honduras.
I regularly receive heartbreaking e-mails from readers simultaneously combating the predations of disease and insurers. One correspondent, Linda, told me how she had been diagnosed earlier this year with abdominal and bladder cancer — leading to battles with her insurance company.
“I will never forget standing outside the chemo treatment room knowing that the medication needed to save my life was only a few feet away, but that because I had private insurance it wasn’t available to me,” Linda wrote. “I read a comment from someone saying that they didn’t want a faceless government bureaucrat deciding if they would or would not get treatment. Well, a faceless bureaucrat from my private insurance made the decision that I wouldn’t get treatment and that I wasn’t worth saving.”
It’s true that Americans have shorter waits to see medical specialists than in most countries, although waits in Germany are shorter than in the United States. But citizens of other countries get longer hospital stays and more medication than Americans do because our insurance companies evict people from hospitals as soon as they can stagger out of bed.
For example, in the United States, 90 percent of hernia surgery is performed on an outpatient basis. In Britain, only 40 percent is, according to a report by the McKinsey Global Institute.
Likewise, Americans take 10 percent fewer drugs than citizens in other countries — but pay 118 percent more per pill that they do take, McKinsey said.
Opponents of reform assert that the wretched statistics in the United States are simply a consequence of unhealthy lifestyles and a diverse population with pockets of poverty. It’s true that America suffers more from obesity than other countries. But McKinsey found that over all, the disease burden in Europe is higher than in the United States, probably because Americans smoke less and because the American population is younger.
Moreover, there is one American health statistic that is strikingly above average: life expectancy for Americans who have already reached the age of 65. At that point, they can expect to live longer than the average in industrialized countries. That’s because Americans above age 65 actually have universal health care coverage: Medicare. Suddenly, a diverse population with pockets of poverty is no longer such a drawback.
As Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama puts it, President Obama’s plans amount to “the first step in destroying the best health care system the world has ever known.”
Excuse me while I send a copy of the $4,700 bill for my 90-minute ER stay for kidney stones to Senator Shelby.
__________________
Excuse me stewardess, I speak jive.
There are elements of excellence within the US healthcare system. Let's roll big pharma into the equation too and one will note the amount of r&d that goes on is phenomenal (though similar work is done for less in other countries). An emphasis on patient safety, unparalleled elsewhere, the use of automated and electronic systems (still patchy and in some respects more widespread in Europe, especially when it comes to metrics and measurement data), etc.
However, if you look at the whole picture it is rather depressing. Costs out of hand, the right care not making it to the right patients, many efficiencies and safety practices not in place yet, drug shortages, etc, etc. It is a pathetic situation to be even an upper middle class American in one's 50's and to be diagnosed with cancer. Every aspect of one's life is impacted and if one does survive, there is nothing left to retire on, and we know how great that system works in America too.
The best restaurants in the world aren't the most affordable either.
If Michelin stars were handed out with affordability as a criteria of the same importance as UHS advocates attach to cost of medical care, none of the top-rated restaurants today would retain their rating.
The best restaurants in the world aren't the most affordable either.
If Michelin stars were handed out with affordability as a criteria of the same importance as UHS advocates attach to cost of medical care, none of the top-rated restaurants today would retain their rating.
Well, that's true. But isn't it a bit flippant to compare healthcare with restaurants, or indeed most services?
Well, that's true. But isn't it a bit flippant to compare healthcare with restaurants, or indeed most services?
Food and shelter are the two other main essentials of life. Of course, even with/during the recent housing and commodity bubble, both are vastly more predictable expenses than medical care.
Plus, of course, the US hasn't done that well with universal access to either (especially housing; food, we do a somewhat better job with between government programs and just food in general being super-cheap here relative to other components of the cost of living.)
__________________ My Blog|'It's difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it.'
Programs: NW silver, Spirit Somebody; DL, CO, UA once gold now dirt. AA & US for magazines.
Posts: 6,001
To answer the OP's question, I believe that some actually do because they see only the one element (new-treatment leadership) and not the others, like the lousy insurance system or so many people uninsured or underinsured.
They'll repeat anecdotes about successes with cutting edge treatments saving this or that life, but lives lost because of delayed treatment because a person was uninsured or underinsured and didn't get care until they showed up in an ER are ignored. Delivering the best treatment to the few that can pay takes priority over saving or improving the most lives overall (the implicit link being that lives of those who can pay count for more than those who can't). When called on it they'll insist that low-income people somehow manage to still get access to the best treatment, when that's patently false. Even insured people are routinely blocked from specialist access or being able to use treatments deemed "experimental." Very arbitrary...lots of people who think they have "good" insurance because their employer told them so will be singing a different tune if something actually happens to them. If they're unlucky they'll get denied treatment on cost considerations and their survivors get to sue; if "lucky" they might get access but get bankrupted by it.
The often-quoted WHO report got it right. It ranked the U.S. #1 in ability to get the latest treatments IF you can pay, but ranked the U.S. #37 overall. Shelby is considering the interests of the very few, not of the many.
Others claim that if everyone can't enjoy it, nobody should.
Yet others claim that they should be able to eat out, but it's unfair that they be asked to pay.
At the end of the day, it takes a real perverse person to claim that the free food handed out by charities and government agencies represent the best meal possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhlyingRPh
Well, that's true. But isn't it a bit flippant to compare healthcare with restaurants, or indeed most services?
No.
If anything, it's degrading to our humanity to listen to the self-satisfied advocates claim that UHS is part of necessity of life even though the more basic necessities of life aren't subject to government funding.
I would fund universal food, utilities, and housing programs BEFORE a single penny goes into paying for UHS because I believe in the greatest benefit should go to the most needy - not maximum resources for the relatively few.
That's what UHS is about - earmarking large sums to save a small percentage of all patients from the financial pain of paying for their own care.
I am opposed to pork-barrel earmarks in all its forms.
Programs: NW silver, Spirit Somebody; DL, CO, UA once gold now dirt. AA & US for magazines.
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plato90s
If anything, it's degrading to our humanity to listen to the self-satisfied advocates claim that UHS is part of necessity of life even though the more basic necessities of life aren't subject to government funding.
I would fund universal food, utilities, and housing programs BEFORE a single penny goes into paying for UHS because I believe in the greatest benefit should go to the most needy - not maximum resources for the relatively few.
That's what UHS is about - earmarking large sums to save a small percentage of all patients from the financial pain of paying for their own care.
Umm, the same people who think it's somehow un-American to pay for somebody else's health care also don't tend to do too well on supporting such things as food stamps, housing assistance, etc. Maybe I'm generalizing here and I'm sure there are exceptions, but I see a lot of knee-jerk blame-the-victim mentality among the teabag types across the board, not just with health care. Their whole concept of government is simplified to a mechanism for some collective "them" to try to redistribute wealth or otherwise take something they don't deserve. Never mind that elderly, veterans and corporations get the lion's share of help; they're always up for stories about "welfare queens" (the old Reagan thing) or some updated version of the poor-person-with-poor-ways (race never mentioned) who's gaming the system. Said individual is lazy except on election day, when they spring into action and vote several times.
It's no accident, though, that opponents of reform are doing the government-as-bogeyman approach rather than trying to argue that health care shouldn't be considered a right. The latter approach polled worse than the former.
As for the "financial pain of paying for their own care," really very few CAN. The whole reason we have insurance at all (sham that it often is) is because of that. We have Medicare because insurers didn't want to cover seniors because it was discovered that they have a tendency to die eventually (and be unprofitable before then). As for the rest, most that are reported as "satisfied" with their coverage simply haven't had a major emergency. But more people are realizing that you could easily be insured and still bankrupted.
Umm, the same people who think it's somehow un-American to pay for somebody else's health care also don't tend to do too well on supporting such things as food stamps, housing assistance, etc. Maybe I'm generalizing here and I'm sure there are exceptions
What maybe? What you did is a dictionary example of generalizing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyC
I see a lot of knee-jerk blame-the-victim mentality among the teabag types across the board, not just with health care. Their whole concept of government is simplified to a mechanism for some collective "them" to try to redistribute wealth or otherwise take something they don't deserve. Never mind that elderly, veterans and corporations get the lion's share of help; they're always up for stories about "welfare queens" (the old Reagan thing) or some updated version of the poor-person-with-poor-ways (race never mentioned) who's gaming the system. Said individual is lazy except on election day, when they spring into action and vote several times.
I also see a lot of knee-jerk, blame-the-company mentality among the socialist types across the board, not just with health care. Their whole concept of the economy is simplified to a mechanism for some collective "them" to try to steal wealth or otherwise take something they don't deserve. Never mind that their proposals don't help the needy; they're always up for stories about "greedy corporations" or some updated version of the big-heartless-companies gaming the system. Said individual is lazy except on election day, when they spring into action and vote several times.
But that's just a foolish generalization which solves nothing except to feed the sense of superiority of the speaker - a position which has no basis in fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyC
As for the "financial pain of paying for their own care," really very few CAN. The whole reason we have insurance at all (sham that it often is) is because of that.
That is just not true. As noted elsewhere, medical insurance in practice is very different from other forms of insurance in that people expect to make regular claims. It's because of that perverse sense of expectation that people come to such a faulty conclusion about the quality of "insurance" which most people treat as a subsidy instead.
That's in addition to the outright falsehood you claimed. The vast majority of medical care provided are things which MOST people can afford.
The ultra expensive care is the exception, not the rule as falsely represented by advocates.
Finally, since when does unaffordability equate the necessity for the government to provide it?
Only to people whose sense of entitlement outstrips their common sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyC
We have Medicare because insurers didn't want to cover seniors because it was discovered that they have a tendency to die eventually (and be unprofitable before then).
Another outright falsehood.
Medicare, like the rest of the Great Society programs which LBJ passed, was a wealth transfer program.
The goal was to pass UHS. Johnson didn't have enough political clout for it, so he settled for covering the elderly because they vote frequently and even the Republicans who thought LBJ was nuts voted in favor of Medicare.
We should, at a minimum, be able to agree on the facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RustyC
As for the rest, most that are reported as "satisfied" with their coverage simply haven't had a major emergency. But more people are realizing that you could easily be insured and still bankrupted.
You left out an important fact.
Unless those people are already financially on the edge, it is extremely unlikely that medical bills is going to bankrupt you.
If anything, it's degrading to our humanity to listen to the self-satisfied advocates claim that UHS is part of necessity of life even though the more basic necessities of life aren't subject to government funding.
I would fund universal food, utilities, and housing programs BEFORE a single penny goes into paying for UHS because I believe in the greatest benefit should go to the most needy - not maximum resources for the relatively few.
That's what UHS is about - earmarking large sums to save a small percentage of all patients from the financial pain of paying for their own care.
I am opposed to pork-barrel earmarks in all its forms.
I must admit, I have never placed any of the items you listed above universal healthcare in my personal hierarchy of people's rights. It's an interesting thought, in that if one the goals of universal healthcare is to build a truly preventative health environment, it is hard to be truly preventive when people are eating foods loaded with high fructose corn syrup and carbs, as well as canned meats and vegetables.
