Hiku said:
If you are on a treatment that gives you certain deficiencies, then your doctor can subscribe you supplements. So yes, I don't see why that couldn't be considered healthcare. |
My point isn't whether or not something counts as healthcare, my point is that when you compare country A to country B, are you comparing the same thing? If one country provides vitamins as a part of their healthcare system, and another doesn't, the one who provides will look like a more expensive one, comparatively.
The overall point of my post isn't that the US healthcare system is good or bad, or other systems. My point is that when people read things like "x in y is a and x in z is b", they should apply critical thinking to see if there are other things that explain a large part of the difference - such as differences in measurements (VERY important when comparing national statistics), or completely third-party variables that may have an effect (such as obesity rates, fertility rates, percentage of elderly, crime/poverty rates, cultural acceptance of vaccinations, treatments, contraceptives, etc), but which the author of the claim chose to ignore, or did not consider themselves.
Because here's the thing, right, if people don't apply such thinking and don't consider other things, it becomes very likely that people end up treating the symptom of another, more important underlying cancer.
As for the rest of your post, I agree that there are subtantial differences between states. As I posted however, the rate of obesity between USA and Sweden is about double. If obesity is a cause of difference (I'm not claiming it is, I'm just saying that it's a factor that really should be considered), then it would explain a large chunk of those numbers that you read of it being 3 times higher.
If the states have something in common, it can't really be the factor that differentiates.
Personally, on the drug issue, I supported Sanders measure to allow the importation of drugs from other countries. I also think that Medicare/Medicaid/the VA should negogiate harder, that FDA approval should be streamlined (FDA, for example, has blocked all competitors to the EpiPen - whereas the EU has approved several competitors - a potential explanation for the factor 10 price difference, FDA has created a monopoly), and that issues like medical patents / other policies that keep new drugs from coming into market should be a real topic of discussion for healthcare reform.
Also, I'm not supporting Trumpcare in anyway, or attacking/defending Obamacare. I think Obamacare is a toxic system that replaced another toxic system, and that Trumpcare will do the same - if it even gets through Congress. The likelihood of any real reform that does anything other than making things get worse is extremely likely to fail. Whether you're coming at it from a free-markets angle, or the socialized-healthcare angle, Congress is antithecial to both.
