Family health costs outpace inflation and wage growth

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Patranus
Why are the vast majority of state of the art medical procedures coming from the USA?

What your basis for that statement?

How can you make the claim that those countries get the "same quality care" when it has been show time and time again that is simply not the case?

Actually, it's been shown time and time again that they get better medical outcomes for less money.

Bull Shit. Why are cancer survival rates so much higher compared to other countries?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...-lowest-in-Europe.html

ooops


We spend more money as a percentage of GDP but we have a 20% (men) higher survival rate compared to England. hmmmm

Don't like that article, well here is another one
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596


but...but...but....socialized medicen is SOOOOO much better....like in Europe...because they are SOOO cool.....right...

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Patranus
We spend more money as a percentage of GDP but we have a 20% (men) higher survival rate compared to England. hmmmm

Let me see, for two times the price, we get marginally better cancer outcomes ...and demonstrably poorer outcomes for just about every measure of health and life span.

It may be useful to you to point to the UK given that it is the least popular Universal Care model available and in no way relevant to a discussion about the US.

Don't like that article, well here is another one...

You realize of course, that no one with any integrity uses anything written by Betsy McCaughey in a discussion about health care. As James Fallows wrote last month::

"Elizabeth "Betsy" McCaughey also needs no introduction to Atlantic readers. She has brought more misinformation, more often, more destructively into America's consideration of health-policy issues than any other individual. She has no concept of "truth" or "accuracy" in the normal senses of those terms, as demonstrated last week when she went on The Daily Show. Virtually every statement she has made about health-reform proposals, from the Clinton era until now, has been proven to be false. It doesn't slow her down."

 

[Patranus]

20% is "marginally better"?

I provided TWO sources of data and you refute that with The Daily Show.
I am glad James Fallows and The Daily Show are up to your standards while factual data provided by the National Center for Policy Analysis isn't.

LMAO

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Patranus
20% is "marginally better"?

Read your charts -- the difference in cancer survival rates between other countries and the US is significantly less than your cherry-picked UK. That of course, is why opponents of Universal Healthcare like to talk about the UK and never know anything about Germany, France, Switzerland, etc.

I provided TWO sources of data and you refute that with The Daily Show.
I am glad James Fallows and The Daily Show are up to your standards while factual data provided by the National Center for Policy Analysis isn't.

The National Center for Policy Analysis is, an insurance industry funded operation ...which for whatever reason, has continued to support Betsy McCaughey in her never ending flights from the truth.

And say what you will about Jon Stewart, his research is generally more thorough than "real" journalists.

All of this though, assumes that cancer survival rates are the measure of quality of care -- as opposed to the other measurements doctors and health organizations use.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Athena
Read your charts -- the difference in cancer survival rates between other countries and the US is significantly less than your cherry-picked UK. That of course, is why opponents of Universal Healthcare like to talk about the UK and never know anything about Germany, France, Switzerland, etc.

Switzerland? Oh, the USA is 12% higher....
Germany? Oh, the USA is 16% higher....

Ya, I sure "cherry picked" the UK out of that group because it was THAT MUCH less compared to other European countries.


I am, once again LMAO at your attempt to deflect from the FACTS.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: Patranus
20% is "marginally better"?

Read your charts -- the difference in cancer survival rates between other countries and the US is significantly less than your cherry-picked UK. That of course, is why opponents of Universal Healthcare like to talk about the UK and never know anything about Germany, France, Switzerland, etc.

Technically, the only one of those countries with UHC is the UK. France is close with their social security system taking most of the cost.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Patranus
20% is "marginally better"?

I provided TWO sources of data and you refute that with The Daily Show.
I am glad James Fallows and The Daily Show are up to your standards while factual data provided by the National Center for Policy Analysis isn't.

LMAO

20% is marginally better, it's probably within the margin of error.

1 in 100 vs 1.2 in 100 is 20%.

Secondly, cancer is only one subset of health care.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So Phokus, if there is a treatment which might help me, you'll deny it because statistically I might have only a 1 in 10 chance? The FSHCM doesn't love us!

If your treatment costs an exorbitant amount and means a terminally ill uninsured patient WON'T get a lower cost treatment that has a near 100% success rate if we spend money on your low success rate treatment? Absolutely: Denying the treatment and allocating the resources to proven treatments to cure more people is a Pareto efficient outcome.

 

[Exterous]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Ever wonder why Europeans, Canadians, Taiwanese, and Japanese aren't demanding that their governments end socialized medicine and adopt the American system?

What is the racial diversity of Taiwanese and Japan compared to that of the United States?

If you have a large group of something that is all the same, you eliminate many variables and are thus able to lower cost.

(And no, this is not a racist comment against African Americans or Hispanic people - just think about it for a second)

Also, think about where the R&D for the treatments used in these countries comes from.....

Let me get this straight...physiological differences between whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are the reason why health care is so expensive in the U.S.? Cancer manifests itself differently amongst different racial and ethnic groups resulting in increased efficiencies of scale for treatment?

So, a black man's cancer is different than a white man's cancer which is different than an Asian man's cancer, which is different from a Hispanic man's cancer?

Certain ethnicities have a predisposed tendency towards certain illnesses. For example: African Americans have a significantly higher chance of sickle cell anemia.

Something else to consider it population density. The US is more dispersed then most 'Modern' countries it's HC is being compared to. This will inherently cause issues with heath care access and coverage making it harder/more expensive to cover US citizens than some other countries.

The thing to keep in mind is that not even the WHO expects the US to be #1 in healthcare - ever - due to a number non-policy related issues (like those mentioned above). This is why they have a Goal Attainment Category which lists the ranking they view as the best achievable for the country. Does this mean there are no issues with our Health Care? No. We are typically ranked in the mid 30s while our Goal is in the mid-teens. However it should be taken into account when comparing the US to European and Small Asian countries with Goal ranks in the single digits (Japan, Taiwan, UK etc)

 

[xj0hnx]

Originally posted by: First
Britain, Canada, and France are able to cover everyone with mandated gov't medicine at half the percentage of their GDP that we spend, with the same quality care we get to boot. The solution is pretty obvious.

People in Europe don't use the emergency room as a general practitioner either. Go to teh emergency room with the sniffles in Germany and they'll kicj you out, and tell you to go to a normal doctor. The looney left wants to pretend it's black and white, and because sometihng works in another country with grossly different practices taht it will work here, they're wrong.