New study shows U.S. Healthcare is not "superior"

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,949
569
136
US healthcare sucks ass unless you're wealthy - what else is new?

I wouldn't say "sucks ass" but inadequate for sure. "Suck ass" would apply more to people in Somalia etc...

This is definitely not new, there was the WHO ranking for many years ago that basically says the same thing. We pay tons more for quite a bit less. The only part "new" is it continues to get worse as health care costs continue to rise. Until we get real healthcare reform, this will never change. I don't hate obamacare like some, but I do think it does not do NEARLY enough.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Obamacare is part of the problem...any system which punishes an employer for providing great healtchare coverage at low prices is not part of the solution to the problem of having poor healthcare coverage at high prices.
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,949
569
136
Obamacare is part of the problem...any system which punishes an employer for providing great healtchare coverage at low prices is not part of the solution to the problem of having poor healthcare coverage at high prices.

Obamacare doesn't provide the quality of care, your point means nothing. I don't disagree that punishing good healthcare coverage is an issue, but it is not THIS issue.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Obamacare doesn't provide the quality of care, your point means nothing. I don't disagree that punishing good healthcare coverage is an issue, but it is not THIS issue.

Sure it is. If you could increase your level of healthcare insurance while reducing your costs, you will have superior healthcare at lower cost. That is one of the big issues everyone in this thread is talking about, the cost of the healthcare.

Obamacare punishes companies (and those who work for them) if the company provides high quality heathcare insurance at low cost. It is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I wouldn't say "sucks ass" but inadequate for sure. "Suck ass" would apply more to people in Somalia etc...

This is definitely not new, there was the WHO ranking for many years ago that basically says the same thing. We pay tons more for quite a bit less. The only part "new" is it continues to get worse as health care costs continue to rise. Until we get real healthcare reform, this will never change. I don't hate obamacare like some, but I do think it does not do NEARLY enough.

Obamacare is a great hammer for tightening bolts.
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,949
569
136
Sure it is. If you could increase your level of healthcare insurance while reducing your costs, you will have superior healthcare at lower cost. That is one of the big issues everyone in this thread is talking about, the cost of the healthcare.

Obamacare punishes companies (and those who work for them) if the company provides high quality heathcare insurance at low cost. It is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

You twist everything you spit out of your mouth. I don't disagree that portion is a problem. But this study was over years and that portion of Obamacare was not in effect. This study was talking about 2009 data which if my memory serves me... is before Obamacare passed unless you want to count a few days.

The fact that the US provides lower quality of service for a much higher price has been building for a LONG time. In 2006, US spending on healthcare was #1 yet infant mortality was 39th in the world and women mortality was 43rd... you want to blame Obama for that too? Hell we were ranked 37th by the WHO in 2000 even.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
My point is that Obamacare will worsen the situation, not help it. That is what I said, repeatedly. It is not even a good partial fix, it is part of the problem. My healthcare costs have actually gone down the last few years in a row, while my level of healtchare insurance has increased. Obama and the dems wants this to stop...which is why his Obamacare is part of the problem.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
You twist everything you spit out of your mouth. I don't disagree that portion is a problem. But this study was over years and that portion of Obamacare was not in effect. This study was talking about 2009 data which if my memory serves me... is before Obamacare passed unless you want to count a few days.

The fact that the US provides lower quality of service for a much higher price has been building for a LONG time. In 2006, US spending on healthcare was #1 yet infant mortality was 39th in the world and women mortality was 43rd... you want to blame Obama for that too? Hell we were ranked 37th by the WHO in 2000 even.

Besides US healthcare sucks please explain infant morality rates in the US.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
In 2006, US spending on healthcare was #1 yet infant mortality was 39th in the world and women mortality was 43rd... you want to blame Obama for that too? Hell we were ranked 37th by the WHO in 2000 even.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Infant+Mortality+Rate

BTW we dropped for 2012, we are estimated at 49th now.

It appears it has gotten worse, using your own support.

But what does this have to do with Obamacare purposefully being designed to punish companies (and its employees) who provide quality healthcare coverage for low cost? Since high cost is the basis of your argument, you really should agree with me that Obamacare is NOT part of the solution to lower costs, but instead is part of the problem.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Oh, while you are at it black males have a shorter life expectancy than their white counterparts. Is the system responsible for that and why?
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,949
569
136
It appears it has gotten worse, using your own support.

But what does this have to do with Obamacare purposefully being designed to punish companies (and its employees) who provide quality healthcare coverage for low cost? Since high cost is the basis of your argument, you really should agree with me that Obamacare is NOT part of the solution to lower costs, but instead is part of the problem.

Wow your useless. This thread is about a study showing data from 2009 AKA before obamacare. The question is WTF does Obamacare have to do with this study? Hint this study took place before Obamacare. I recommend you research how Time works... Here I'll help.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
I understand you want to pretend Obamacare is a fix to the problem, but pretending that the problem suddenly stopped due to Obamacare being signed is silly.

Please join the rest of us in 2012. 2009 ended a few years ago. Reality is Obamacare DOES exist (for now) and it IS part of the problem, not the solution. Pretending the last few years never happened and that it is still 2009 is silly.
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,949
569
136
I understand you want to pretend Obamacare is a fix to the problem, but pretending that the problem suddenly stopped due to Obamacare being signed is silly.

Please join the rest of us in 2012. 2009 ended a few years ago. Reality is Obamacare DOES exist (for now) and it IS part of the problem, not the solution. Pretending the last few years never happened and that it is still 2009 is silly.

Typical republican, deflect. I never said Obamacare will fix the problem, why don't you give us your "fix".
 

Dulanic

Diamond Member
Oct 27, 2000
9,949
569
136
Do people who randomly parrot information they hear ever stop to think about what they're saying? If we're that bad on the infant mortality chart, there should be Dead Baby Disposal Services popping up all over. Where are all these dead babies? Shouldn't they be topping the news on a nightly basis?

:colbert: Obviously that is what I said.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Really? Most people get good care and most aren't rich.

Good =/= Great.

Not rich =/= Not paying insurance.

The problem here is simple. We pay too much for things that we gain no benefit from.

Since Pharms are limited in what they can charge elsewhere, and they have a virtual treasure trove with our retirement medication plans, they charge "what the market (and others) will bear" in the US.

WE pay for the development of the worlds pharms. Unfortunately, the ones that seem to get the most funding are antidepressants, potency drugs, hair growers and sleep aids.

Add a profit onto that for guys whose only purpose in both Pharm and Insurance is the bottom line and a LOT of cash gets sucked right out of u with no appreciable result or return.

Our system is not the worst, but it ranks near the bottom compared to the other services and luxuries we CAN afford.

Time to lose our rep as the fat calf in the herd and let the financial lions drool over someone else for a while.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
So you have no idea. Just checking.

Quit it.

He knows, he just does not like being baited for something you could look up.

Our infant mortality rates are WAY too high for a country that is supposed to be so great with all its technology and care plans.

It just shows that we are a bit skewed in that arena and things need to be dealt with, not argued over political lines.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Oh, while you are at it black males have a shorter life expectancy than their white counterparts. Is the system responsible for that and why?

Cross reference that with socioeconomic status of the individuals involved and you will find that poor people, in general, fare worse than affluent, and that lesser educated people fare worse as well.

As the black community has a higher percentage of poor, and undereducated, you can see where this is going.

Unless you are blinded by color.....
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Cross reference that with socioeconomic status of the individuals involved and you will find that poor people, in general, fare worse than affluent, and that lesser educated people fare worse as well.

As the black community has a higher percentage of poor, and undereducated, you can see where this is going.

Unless you are blinded by color.....

And of you are in possession of truth what you would find is that life expectancy from birth is shorter but if you measure from the early thirties onward black and white males live to the same age although the primary diseases which ultimately cause death are different. The "logic" that health care might be the cause is specious. Likewise it isn't bad health care but less educated women do not use services which are available. BTW health care does not magically improve with black males age.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
And of you are in possession of truth what you would find is that life expectancy from birth is shorter but if you measure from the early thirties onward black and white males live to the same age although the primary diseases which ultimately cause death are different. The "logic" that health care might be the cause is specious. Likewise it isn't bad health care but less educated women do not use services which are available. BTW health care does not magically improve with black males age.

Why do the kids die?

Wasn't there a blurb a bit back about "infant mortality rates"? ;)

And here's the rub. Genetically I think blacks have a better physiological makeup due to the years of hardship endured. If you weren't tough enough, you DIED, many dying before reproducing. An unpleasant "side effect" from Slavery and 3rd world living conditions (combined in different proportions).

This physical advantage is readily seen in almost ALL sports, but is becoming diluted with age as natural genetic permutations, poor living conditions, and interbreeding are making them just as unhealthy as the rest of us.


My point being, you can't draw conclusions from mass data about a specific race or socioeconomic group w/o some serious uniform parameters, delineation of environmental factors, and qualification through a large enough sample set to validate.


What we do all the time these days is throw numbers around.

All I know is that when I look at my medical bill and see the charges for something as simple as a shot (several HUNDRED dollars) and the insurance payment thereof ($47) it makes me question our system.

When I went to college and was no longer under my parents plan, looking at Cobra plans, even way back then, was daunting. The cheapest were over $300 a month for a healthy 22yo (grad school). How do we expect the middle class to bear that easily? That is as much as I spent on FOOD!

Anyway, I have work to do.... last time I checked... ;)
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
The reason for discrepancy is overwhelmingly due to violence. It's brutally Darwinian. Those who have learned positive adaptive behaviors survive. In our youth we males are stupid risk takers, but that can be fatal in the inner city. Those that aren't lucky or don't adapt die young and that's a tragedy.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
I think it is a combination of many factors, and throwing them about in a casual manner usually only gets them mis-applied.

Anyway....