Er, if we COULD stick to the topic, fellas... I think that at any point in time there's something like 7-800,000 people who will be dead within one year from heart disease, (although some of these will be in third world countries), whereas there's only about 3,500 hearts available for transplantation every year so that's always going to be a sticky one. In any event even if the number of heart transplants is lower in some countries than others, for whatever reason, that doesn't alter the fact that decisions should be made on medical grounds rather than financial ones. In my opinion it is medically sound to limit major corrective surgery, (particularly in the situation that the supply of it is restricted simply by numbers of available organs rather than money), to people who are, a) young enough to get some benefit out of it in the long run and, b) not likely to make the whole exercise a complete and utter waste of time because their lifestyle means that they are going to be dead within a year or two anyway from drink, drugs, smoking and lack of exercise. If the amount most Americans spend on health insurance is anything like the $7-8,000 a year someone mentioned that seems extremely high to me. I'm not trying to be nosy but can I ask the Americans here to indicate how much they or people they know pay for their health insurance? As someone said, it may their emloyer that pays it but it pretty much comes to the same thing.
That's something I found out recently... that the average Dutchman is almost 2 inches taller than the average American. In fact the average American is significantly shorter than the average European in general and the reasons are usually put down to poor diet and inadequate health care. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1185387,00.html 'This surprising reappraisal of American and European physiques is the work of researcher John Komlos of Munich University. 'Much of the difference is due to the great social inequality that now exists in the United States,' Komlos told The Observer last week. 'In Europe, there is - in most countries - good health service provision for most members of society and plenty of protein in most people's diets. As a result, children do not suffer illnesses that would blight their growth or suffer problems of malnutrition. For that reason, we have continued to grow and grow.'
Health system attainment and performance in all Member States, ranked by eight measures, estimates for 1997 USA ranked #72 "on level of health" and #37 "Overall health system performance". UK #24 and #18 France #4 and #1 Germany #41 and #25 Italy #3 and #2 Spain #6 and #7 Netherlands #19 and #17 So no question European healthcare is superior to US one. DutchOven can relief... and reconsider his opinions, maybe.
Anyway... I watched the programme I mentioned in my first post... frightening stuff I must say. The story is also mentioned on this link but I haven't found too many other links to it. http://nypress.com/17/28/news&columns/LiamScheff.cfm 'In 1992, "an outpatient clinic for HIV-positive children was established" and, with funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which is a subdivision of the National Institutes for Health (NIH), "the clinic became a subunit of the Columbia University Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Unit." That's when INCARNATION CHILDREN'S CENTER (ICC) went from being a home for children of impoverished, drug-addicted mothers to a recipient of funds for allowing the NIH to use these HIV-positive orphans as test subjects.' The thrust of the programme was that the hospitals, (many of which I believe are run by religious organisations like the catholic church), and the city of New York are making money from drug companies out of medical experiments on poor children. One wonders whether this money-making venture can be extended into other areas... prostitution, for example, or white slave trading.
That's what I sort of figured. How about Belgium though? I've always been told that their healthcare is brilliant.
Interesting. It's hard to explain why the Dutch are so tall. Some say it's the exceptionally high intake of dairy products, also there's calcium added to our water.
#28 and #21 Netherlands performed better. Btw JN just open the link and you will know about all the member states, you lazy socialist eurotrash.
For me and my wife it costs 87$ every two weeks or around $2300 per year which is matched by my employer. He also contributes administration fees and the like. So the total fee to insure us is around $4800-4900. My co-payment for procedures is $15 and my drug fee is $40 for name brands and $7 for generics. so you can probably add another $150 to the total. However I don't nearly use as much of my insurance as most. Plus there is a bunch of money witheld for Medicare and Medicaid but I am too lazy to get my tax returns. I think Gringo is pretty accurate with that $7000 figure.
I'm not sure we can take this at face value. I'm not just squabbling with statistics here, but on the site you linked there was no description of HOW this was done. I also notice there is a column entitled "fairness in financial contribution" which is unrelated to the quality of healthcare delivery, but might be an area where substantial, politically-motivated bias could creep in. I would also be more comfortable if the numbers were more current. It seems to me, based on a lot of mostly anecdotal evidence, that the best healthcare is available in the US if you are insured or have the means to pay for it. It seems that most of Europe does a better job of ensuring a basic level of healthcare for all of it's population.
Well if you have money you can get healthcare anywhere. A rich European might just as well travel to an American hospital to get care there so that's not really a valid argument is it.
This invalidates the comment how? I was commenting on the difference in designed delivery of the two systems. You have actually validated my point. Thank you!
Correct me if I'm wrong but you basically said the US offers the best healthcare to those that can afford it. That in no way says anything about the general quality of said healthcare as rich Europeans also have access to it, just like rich Americans have access to European healthcare. Would you also say that countries that offer the richest variety of expensive perfumes in their shops have the best smelling population?
So? That doesn't make the comment invalid. The comments you have just made here, while obtuse, are not invalid. I commented on a difference in the healthcare systems which is the point of this thread. Your perfume example is ludicrous. It would be more pertinent if you added on a second part that is more in line with the second part of the statement I made, or didn't you get that far before you flew off the handle?
Was I flying off the handle? I wasn't aware. Of course there is a difference in healthcare systems, everybody knows that. The point I'm trying to make is that accessibility of quality healthcare should be vital in this discussion. The fact that the US probably has the most modern healthcare facilities in the world is pretty irrelevant when those facilities aren't available to the majority of the population, whether for financial reasons or otherwise.
The point here is that in order to have the most advanced healthcare for a few, the U.S. has to leave many others uncovered.
I understand your point and agree that accessibility is important. What I was pointing out is that European countries, in general, do a better job of providing a basic level of healthcare. This includes normal checkups, maternity care, etc. The flip side of this is that for the very highest quality of care, one would come to the US. If it were true that "those facilities aren't available to the majority of the population" then you might have a point, but the fact remains that these facilities ARE available to the majority of the population. The majority of the US population is covered by either insurance or have the independent means to have access to this high level of care. As others have pointed out, and as the WHO report points out, healthcare quality and accessibility is related to income in almost all countries. It is also related to whether you live in the city or in the country. That doesn't make any of these points "invalid" as you said.
Well I like to put things strongly, I'll give you that. I just don't think you can seriously boast about the quality of your healthcare system when such a relatively high percentage of your population isn't even insured and, more importantly, can't afford to have themselves insured.
Absolutely. It's nature of all market systems. Excellent thread, btw, with some good discussion and a couple very interesting articles. However, I'm going to call bullshiit on that comparative health systems chart. Any ranking that puts Morocco as having the 17th best overall health care in the world is really f-cked up.
That's a little like saying we can't boast that Einstein was human because such a relatively high percentage of the population can't understand his theories. But seriously, quality and accessibility are different issues. You CAN have a high qulaity system that is not accessible and vice versa. I would like to see the US evolve toward a system where a basic level of medical help is available to all, while retaining the high quality that is available to most. There are a lot of things that could be done to implement this. My SO works at a national organization for health centers that works to provide healthcare for those that are uninsured and often uninsurable. There are a lot of people that feel that there should be some minimum level of care available to everyone.
Well, since some people like imply that our socializad system is the cause there's a better peak level of healthcare in the U.S., the opposite must be true. Or isn't?