Let's look at some facts

PratchettFan

Gold Member
Jun 20, 2012
7,238
746
190
I have heard repeatedly that the United States has the best health care in the world. I think it can be shown without any difficulty we have the most expensive health care - but "best" is a relative term.

In terms of expense, we have the highest cost of health care per capita - hands down. No one is even close to us. We are 50% higher than the runner up - Norway. But how do you determine overall quality? Difficult, but I would offer that one method would be life expectancy. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the healthier a population is, the longer you could expect them to live. So let us do a comparison of per capita cost vs life expectancy.

Japan: $2,729 per capita LE - 83.91 years
Italy: $2,870 per capita LE - 81.86 years
Spain: $2,902 per capita LE - 81.27 years
U.K.: $3,129 per capita LE - 80.17 years
Austrailia: $3,353 per capita LE - 81.9 years
Sweden: $3,470 per capita LE - 81.18 years
Belgium: $3,677 per capita LE - 79.65 years
France: $3,696 per capita LE - 81.46 years
Germany: $3,737 per capita LE - 80.19 years
Austria: $3,970 per capita LE - 79.91 years
Netherlands: $4,063 per capita LE - 80.91 years
Canada: $4,079 per capita LE - 81.48 years
Switzerland: $4,627 per capita LE - 81.17 years
Norway: $5,003 per capital LE - 80.32 years
United States: $7,538 per capita LE - 78.49 years

As you can see, while we are the most expensive system on the list, we are also at the very bottom of the list when it comes to life expectancy. I find it difficult to see that as being the "best". I suppose the bright side is that by dying a couple of years early you save yourself $15 K.

An interesting note. All of the above countries have universal health care, except the United States.

For those of you who wish to see for yourselves:

Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected OECD Countries - Kaiser Family Foundation

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Now, let us take it as a given that by using actual information I am, by definition, a godless communist or whatever perjorative you wish to use in lieu of an argument. Does anyone have any actual facts to dispute this? I would love to see them.
 
I think it is a reasonable assumption that the healthier a population is, the longer you could expect them to live. So let us do a comparison of per capita cost vs life expectancy.

Japan: $2,729 per capita LE - 83.91 years

United States: $7,538 per capita LE - 78.49 years

As you can see, while we are the most expensive system on the list, we are also at the very bottom of the list when it comes to life expectancy. I find it difficult to see that as being the "best". I suppose the bright side is that by dying a couple of years early you save yourself $15 K.

An interesting note. All of the above countries have universal health care, except the United States.
America has the best TRAUMA Care in the world, no doubt. If you get in a traffic accident and have multiple injuries your chance of survival is probably better than anywhere else.

The problem is America follows the typical Western view of medicine which is:

1. Surgery (Cut)
2. Radiation (Burn)
3. Drug (Poison)

Americans pay almost NO attention to what they eat and even worse, the gov't pushes only what they heavily subsidize through various Farm Bills and that f*ckin' Food Pyramid. Americans see "FDA or USDA Approved" on the label and eat it thinking they are safe. They're not.

Nutrition is hardly ever used as a preventive or restorative health measure. Why? Because there's no money to be made in being healthy but there are HUGE profits in the Medical Industrial Complex.
 
Dude, all you ever hear is how America is NOT the best healthcare in the world. Life expectancy has to do with lifestyle not healthcare.
 
Dude, all you ever hear is how America is NOT the best healthcare in the world. Life expectancy has to do with lifestyle not healthcare.

Actually, all I ever hear is how it IS the best. You could argue that life expectancy is affected by lifestyle, but it will take some hard evidence to convince me healthcare has nothing to do with it. But I am more than willing to use some other method, if you care to offer one.
 
I think it is a reasonable assumption that the healthier a population is, the longer you could expect them to live. So let us do a comparison of per capita cost vs life expectancy.

Japan: $2,729 per capita LE - 83.91 years

United States: $7,538 per capita LE - 78.49 years

As you can see, while we are the most expensive system on the list, we are also at the very bottom of the list when it comes to life expectancy. I find it difficult to see that as being the "best". I suppose the bright side is that by dying a couple of years early you save yourself $15 K.

An interesting note. All of the above countries have universal health care, except the United States.
America has the best TRAUMA Care in the world, no doubt. If you get in a traffic accident and have multiple injuries your chance of survival is probably better than anywhere else.

The problem is America follows the typical Western view of medicine which is:

1. Surgery (Cut)
2. Radiation (Burn)
3. Drug (Poison)

Americans pay almost NO attention to what they eat and even worse, the gov't pushes only what they heavily subsidize through various Farm Bills and that f*ckin' Food Pyramid. Americans see "FDA or USDA Approved" on the label and eat it thinking they are safe. They're not.

Nutrition is hardly ever used as a preventive or restorative health measure. Why? Because there's no money to be made in being healthy but there are HUGE profits in the Medical Industrial Complex.

You say "no doubt", but I rarely have no doubt. Do you have anything to support the claim we have the best trauma care in the world?

As to eating. The UK has a considerably better life expectancy than the US. Have you ever seen what they eat? Also, if we are going to use lifestyle we should probably consider smoking as a factor. Yet 30% of adult Japanese smoke while only 17% of adult Americans, despite a significantly higher life expectancy. France, Belgium, Germany, Norway, UK all have much higher levels of smoking with better life expectancies.

However, I am willing to try some other metric. I just can't think of one as apt.
 
a 10 minute visit with the Doctor cost me and my insurance over $200. No test were run. Routine blood test for PSA, cholostral and something else was $1500. A root canal & crown $2,600. We are being had. That is why those that can aford are going off shore for health care it is cheaper and better.
 
Dude, all you ever hear is how America is NOT the best healthcare in the world. Life expectancy has to do with lifestyle not healthcare.

Actually, all I ever hear is how it IS the best. You could argue that life expectancy is affected by lifestyle, but it will take some hard evidence to convince me healthcare has nothing to do with it. But I am more than willing to use some other method, if you care to offer one.

you must listen only to fox to think that
 
I have heard repeatedly that the United States has the best health care in the world. I think it can be shown without any difficulty we have the most expensive health care - but "best" is a relative term.

In terms of expense, we have the highest cost of health care per capita - hands down. No one is even close to us. We are 50% higher than the runner up - Norway. But how do you determine overall quality? Difficult, but I would offer that one method would be life expectancy. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the healthier a population is, the longer you could expect them to live. So let us do a comparison of per capita cost vs life expectancy.

Japan: $2,729 per capita LE - 83.91 years
Italy: $2,870 per capita LE - 81.86 years
Spain: $2,902 per capita LE - 81.27 years
U.K.: $3,129 per capita LE - 80.17 years
Austrailia: $3,353 per capita LE - 81.9 years
Sweden: $3,470 per capita LE - 81.18 years
Belgium: $3,677 per capita LE - 79.65 years
France: $3,696 per capita LE - 81.46 years
Germany: $3,737 per capita LE - 80.19 years
Austria: $3,970 per capita LE - 79.91 years
Netherlands: $4,063 per capita LE - 80.91 years
Canada: $4,079 per capita LE - 81.48 years
Switzerland: $4,627 per capita LE - 81.17 years
Norway: $5,003 per capital LE - 80.32 years
United States: $7,538 per capita LE - 78.49 years

As you can see, while we are the most expensive system on the list, we are also at the very bottom of the list when it comes to life expectancy. I find it difficult to see that as being the "best". I suppose the bright side is that by dying a couple of years early you save yourself $15 K.

An interesting note. All of the above countries have universal health care, except the United States.

For those of you who wish to see for yourselves:

Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected OECD Countries - Kaiser Family Foundation

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Now, let us take it as a given that by using actual information I am, by definition, a godless communist or whatever perjorative you wish to use in lieu of an argument. Does anyone have any actual facts to dispute this? I would love to see them.

The reason why we have a lower life expectancy has jack shit to do with our health care, and everything to do with the fact that we are the fattest bunch of fuckers on the planet. If you are gonna bitch, at least get your fucking facts straight.

Idiot.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/09/...y-the-fattest-developed-country-in-the-world/
 
Last edited:
How much would healthcare cost if we didn't have malpractice insurance and our doctor's didn't have to run up costs with defensive medicine.

The developed countries with the least costs of medical care also do not have the amount of litigation we have. Most of Europe has a loser pays system that discourages whimsical litigation. If you lose, you pay. Which is something American liberals reject.

America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.

Our editor wrote an account in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the "Contract with America". For a more extensive look at an argument for the loser-pays system, see chapter 15 of The Litigation Explosion, "Strict Liability for Lawyering".

As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people.

PointofLaw.com | Loser Pays

Civil Suits - Reason.com
 
Dude, all you ever hear is how America is NOT the best healthcare in the world. Life expectancy has to do with lifestyle not healthcare.

Actually, all I ever hear is how it IS the best. You could argue that life expectancy is affected by lifestyle, but it will take some hard evidence to convince me healthcare has nothing to do with it. But I am more than willing to use some other method, if you care to offer one.

you must listen only to fox to think that

No. I very rarely listen to fox. I believe I hear that mostly from politicians. I don't recall the last time I heard any person of authority or any news organization claim it was not the best. What source are you using?
 
How much would healthcare cost if we didn't have malpractice insurance and our doctor's didn't have to run up costs with defensive medicine.

The developed countries with the least costs of medical care also do not have the amount of litigation we have. Most of Europe has a loser pays system that discourages whimsical litigation. If you lose, you pay. Which is something American liberals reject.

America differs from all other Western democracies (indeed, from virtually all nations of any sort) in its refusal to recognize the principle that the losing side in litigation should contribute toward "making whole" its prevailing opponent. It's long past time this country joined the world in adopting that principle; unfortunately, any steps toward doing so must contend with deeply entrenched resistance from the organized bar, which likes the system the way it is.

Our editor wrote an account in Reason, June 1995, aimed at explaining how loser-pays works in practice and dispelling some of the more common misconceptions about the device. He also testified before Congress when the issue came up that year as part of the "Contract with America". For a more extensive look at an argument for the loser-pays system, see chapter 15 of The Litigation Explosion, "Strict Liability for Lawyering".

As other countries recognize, the arguments in support of the indemnity principle are overwhelming. They include basic fairness, compensation of the victimized opponent, deterrence of tactical or poorly founded claims and legal maneuvers, and the provision of incentives for accepting reasonable settlements. Sad to say, the American bar, though loud in proclaiming that every other industry and profession should be made to pay for its mistakes, changes its mind in this one area, demanding an across-the-board charitable immunity for its own lucrative industry of suing people.

PointofLaw.com | Loser Pays

Civil Suits - Reason.com

You get no argument from me on this. However, I think that is a factor while not the only factor. Ultimately, it is about money.

If you look at the Kaiser study you will find a chart which goes back to 1970. At that point, while still higher than the other countries, we were much more in line. We were at $356 per capita then. I remember by the mid 1970's there was a huge outcry because the inflation on medical care was going wild. It was around 500%, if I remember right. In 1970, your employer paid for your insurance completely. Co-pays were low, or non-existant, and you went to any doctor you pleased. The AMA's response to the crisis was to assure everyone they would self-regulate this issue - which turned out to mean they weren't going to do anything.

Enter the insurance companies. Premiums went up, co-pays increased, we saw the birth of the HMO and employers could no longer foot the bill. They were talking about a universal system then as well, but not seriously. We let the market control it.

It was in the 1970s that the art of medicine became the business of medicine. For better or worse, that is what we have today.
 
I have heard repeatedly that the United States has the best health care in the world. I think it can be shown without any difficulty we have the most expensive health care - but "best" is a relative term.

In terms of expense, we have the highest cost of health care per capita - hands down. No one is even close to us. We are 50% higher than the runner up - Norway. But how do you determine overall quality? Difficult, but I would offer that one method would be life expectancy. I think it is a reasonable assumption that the healthier a population is, the longer you could expect them to live. So let us do a comparison of per capita cost vs life expectancy.

Japan: $2,729 per capita LE - 83.91 years
Italy: $2,870 per capita LE - 81.86 years
Spain: $2,902 per capita LE - 81.27 years
U.K.: $3,129 per capita LE - 80.17 years
Austrailia: $3,353 per capita LE - 81.9 years
Sweden: $3,470 per capita LE - 81.18 years
Belgium: $3,677 per capita LE - 79.65 years
France: $3,696 per capita LE - 81.46 years
Germany: $3,737 per capita LE - 80.19 years
Austria: $3,970 per capita LE - 79.91 years
Netherlands: $4,063 per capita LE - 80.91 years
Canada: $4,079 per capita LE - 81.48 years
Switzerland: $4,627 per capita LE - 81.17 years
Norway: $5,003 per capital LE - 80.32 years
United States: $7,538 per capita LE - 78.49 years

As you can see, while we are the most expensive system on the list, we are also at the very bottom of the list when it comes to life expectancy. I find it difficult to see that as being the "best". I suppose the bright side is that by dying a couple of years early you save yourself $15 K.

An interesting note. All of the above countries have universal health care, except the United States.

For those of you who wish to see for yourselves:

Snapshots: Health Care Spending in the United States & Selected OECD Countries - Kaiser Family Foundation

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

Now, let us take it as a given that by using actual information I am, by definition, a godless communist or whatever perjorative you wish to use in lieu of an argument. Does anyone have any actual facts to dispute this? I would love to see them.

The reason why we have a lower life expectancy has jack shit to do with our health care, and everything to do with the fact that we are the fattest bunch of fuckers on the planet. If you are gonna bitch, at least get your fucking facts straight.

Idiot.

Study: America Is Officially the Fattest Developed Country in the World | Healthland | TIME.com

Ah yes. I believe I covered the part about insults in lieu of an argument. But thank you for playing.
 
There are discrepancies in how things are reported in other countries which accounts for some of the difference. Lifestyle and the diversity in the US also plays a factor. Calculate the life span in rural Kansas I bet you get a different number. Calculate it in any major urban area and I bet it looks worse.

We have a better lifestyle here which means we are often fat and lazy. Energy is expensive in Europe so you know they walk if it is a short distance. In the US I see people who move their car if they are going to a different store in the same mall.

Health care is so expensive here because we are not willing to let people go. We spend an ungodly amount to keep someone going for a few more days. Toss in the legal cost of being a doctor and well there you go.

Make suing a doctor much more difficult and make every purchaser of health care aware of what they are spending and you will see a sharp drop in average costs. One company makes you pay for the first few thousand dollars of health care and gives you most of that in an account that you spend as you need it. What you do not spend can be spent the next year and I would guess at some point you get to just keep the money. Oh they cover any catastrophic costs as well so when you go over a certain cost it is taken care of.

Giver everyone a few grand that they can keep if they do not spend it and you know that the per capita expenditures will dive bomb.
 
Do those stats include accidental death? The number one cause of death in toddlers is drowning. How many Europeans own pools? Thats not a heathcare issue. The number one cause of death in teens is auto accidents. How many European teens own cars? That also is not a heathcare issue. Those young deaths bring down our number.

Uh oh. Maybe pools and cars will become part of the ACA...
 
Do those stats include accidental death? The number one cause of death in toddlers is drowning. How many Europeans own pools? Thats not a heathcare issue. The number one cause of death in teens is auto accidents. How many European teens own cars? That also is not a heathcare issue. Those young deaths bring down our number.

Uh oh. Maybe pools and cars will become part of the ACA...

The number is an average, so it includes everything. Again, I am willing to examine using another metric but no one has suggested one. Right now it is an established fact that we are paying far more for medical care than any other industrialized nation. Should we not be interested in whether or not we are getting our money's worth? If you don't want to use life expectancy, what would you use?
 
There are discrepancies in how things are reported in other countries which accounts for some of the difference. Lifestyle and the diversity in the US also plays a factor. Calculate the life span in rural Kansas I bet you get a different number. Calculate it in any major urban area and I bet it looks worse.

We have a better lifestyle here which means we are often fat and lazy. Energy is expensive in Europe so you know they walk if it is a short distance. In the US I see people who move their car if they are going to a different store in the same mall.

Health care is so expensive here because we are not willing to let people go. We spend an ungodly amount to keep someone going for a few more days. Toss in the legal cost of being a doctor and well there you go.

Make suing a doctor much more difficult and make every purchaser of health care aware of what they are spending and you will see a sharp drop in average costs. One company makes you pay for the first few thousand dollars of health care and gives you most of that in an account that you spend as you need it. What you do not spend can be spent the next year and I would guess at some point you get to just keep the money. Oh they cover any catastrophic costs as well so when you go over a certain cost it is taken care of.

Giver everyone a few grand that they can keep if they do not spend it and you know that the per capita expenditures will dive bomb.

The problem with that is it does not take into account how insurance works. You may pay $1000 into the system and not use it. I may pay the same $1000 and need $100,000. What makes it possible for the insurance company to cover my $100,000 is all of the other folks who aren't using it. Now, if you toss into the mix the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions and you have a problem. This is why not having a public option makes the mandate necessary.

Or... we just say the hell with it and continue with status quo. In which case, we continue to have the highest costs in the world while having a large segment of our population whose only access to care is the emergency room - driving up the cost of emergency room care and passing those costs on to the tax payer.
 

Forum List

Back
Top