highwaystar101 said:
But the average life expectancy in the UK is 79.01 years where as in the USA it is only 78.53. Even though the disparity is small statistically you are still more likely to live longer in the UK than in the USA (source). And it's not just the UK national system that beats the US's largely private system, other social systems have much longer life expectancies such as.
I mean if national healthcare is so bad in rich countries then why are the life expectancies so good? I tell you why, because the rich countries can afford to give a reasonably high standard of medical care to anyone in their country in an even way. Admittedly poorer countries suffer from national health because it is hard to maintain, but USA is not a poor country by any means. I wouldn't even want to think about what the USAs life expectancy would be without Medicaid and Medicare for 60% of it's population to rely on. The World Health Organisation (WHO) agrees with me too. They rank the USA at 37th best system in the world, where as the aforementioned are ranked.
(The top 30 is pretty much social healthcare systems) All higher than the USA's ranking, and yet again I don't want to think about what would happen if the USA didn't have medicare and medicaid to support the lower 60% of the population if they require it. The ranking would surely slip even further as millions are left with no access to medical care. Face it the USA's system needs reform and that's what Obama wants to do and he has tried to find the best solution for all, and looking at the systems of other developed countries who have adopted a largely social hybrid system (What he suggests) and had success over the US, then I would say he's purely following logic to find what the best reform would be. |
Two horrible statitics.
1) Life expectancy takes more into account then healthcare.... MUCH more. For example the US has a much higher murder rate... espeically among youths... it also doesn't take into account things like obesity rates which relate to health but are not related to healthcare treatment. Diseases may or may not be more common in certain countries due to genetic histories as well... etc. Hence why surivival rates are fare more important.
2) The WHO rankings. Have you ever read the WHO report? I have. It has almost nothing to do with healthcare... with Life expectancy being the only actual indicator of healthcare effectiveness. Everything has to do with healthcare spending and how high a percentage of your income you have to spend... basically it's mostly a measure of how socialized your healthcare system is.
Hence why the most soicalized are all at the top.
Life expectancy of the major diseases is by far a better indicator because it actually has to do with healthcare treatment unlike the two stats you brought up. It still does have some flaws like obesity rates and such... however those still play negativly in the US favor and the US still comes out ahead. (Obese are more likely to die from treatment.)
Furthermore... you know this. Yet are ignoring it because the results go against what you wish. The WHO stuff has been debunked dozens of times on this board before.
The US system isn't any worse then other systems of industrialized nations. They just have different strengths and weaknesses.
The US strengths lie in providing better coverage for most people while the europeon systmes focus more on more equalized service among people of the same age groups.
Both "ration" in a way.
The Europeon system rations away from the old.
The American system rations away from the poor.
Because healthcare is ALWAYS going to be too expensive to properly provide for everbody. Either that or technology is going to slow down.
The big difference is... at least in the US system those usually screwed haven't paid for their healthcare all their lives.
That and the poor seem to still be discriminated against in the universal systems... either that or poor people are just more likely to die during treatment.
There are a few different reasons for this to be the case. General health of the poor being worse and the poor being less likely to fight cost cutting doctors and get the best treatment do to a higher power differential being the most likely.
Neither system is inherently better. Personally though... I perfer a system where you always have a chance to get better coverage and if you aren't getting it... at least you aren't paying for it.
The poor can always become richer or end up taking a job with good healthcare UPS/Starbucks etc... (higher poor is really all that's needed.) The old can pretty much never get young again to get treatment.
I can see people perfering a system that puts priority on how helpful you will be to the community... I disagree with it, but i can see why people would choose it.
