Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I did not realize you said that American had worse heath outcomes and more deaths due to medical related errors despite costing 150% moreDo you actually take the time to read the links you post? They back up what I said.
The United States is one of eight OECD countries in which
waiting times for elective surgery are reported to be low. Meanwhile, wait times are
considered a serious health policy issue in 12 OECD countries.83 In these 12
countries, wait times of 1 to 1½ months are common for procedures such as invasive
heart surgery, whereas wait times for procedures like hip or knee replacement cluster
around five months. In a recent survey, a quarter to a third of respondents in Canada,
the United Kingdom, and Australia reported waiting more than four months for a
non-emergency procedure, compared with only 5% of Americans.84
Wait times are usually tied to capacity of the health care system, with low
numbers of hospital beds and physicians typically associated with long wait times.
Interestingly, the United States is the exception to this rule: here, low levels of beds
and health care providers (Figures 15 and 22) have not been accompanied by long
wait times for elective surgery. International trends suggest that wait times are also
associated with low total health spending; however, the exception to this rule is
Japan, which spends only $2,249 on health per capita (compared with $6,102 in the
United States) yet does not have a wait time problem. Wait times are more common
in countries where physicians are paid by salary (such as in the United Kingdom)
instead of on a fee-for-service basis (as in the United States).85
Page 47 http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
Cancer patients in Britain have a far worse chance of surviving than those in any other country in the developed world, a shocking study reveals today.
Researchers who studied data covering millions of patients in dozens of countries said their findings laid bare Britain's appalling record.
Five-year survival rates for early-stage breast cancer were only 78 per cent, against 97 per cent in the U.S. and 93 per cent across Europe.
Read more: Britain trails in cancer survival rates | Mail Online
I did not realize you said that American had worse heath outcomes and more deaths due to medical related errors despite costing 150% moreDo you actually take the time to read the links you post? They back up what I said.
I didn't. I said, responding to your claim about England spending half per capita (you actually said capital, which is the wrong term) than we do, "They also have a lower survival rate of serious illnesses than we do and wait far longer to get care when sick and suffering."
The United States is one of eight OECD countries in which
waiting times for elective surgery are reported to be low. Meanwhile, wait times are
considered a serious health policy issue in 12 OECD countries.83 In these 12
countries, wait times of 1 to 1½ months are common for procedures such as invasive
heart surgery, whereas wait times for procedures like hip or knee replacement cluster
around five months. In a recent survey, a quarter to a third of respondents in Canada,
the United Kingdom, and Australia reported waiting more than four months for a
non-emergency procedure, compared with only 5% of Americans.84
Wait times are usually tied to capacity of the health care system, with low
numbers of hospital beds and physicians typically associated with long wait times.
Interestingly, the United States is the exception to this rule: here, low levels of beds
and health care providers (Figures 15 and 22) have not been accompanied by long
wait times for elective surgery. International trends suggest that wait times are also
associated with low total health spending; however, the exception to this rule is
Japan, which spends only $2,249 on health per capita (compared with $6,102 in the
United States) yet does not have a wait time problem. Wait times are more common
in countries where physicians are paid by salary (such as in the United Kingdom)
instead of on a fee-for-service basis (as in the United States).85
Page 47 http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
Cancer patients in Britain have a far worse chance of surviving than those in any other country in the developed world, a shocking study reveals today.
Researchers who studied data covering millions of patients in dozens of countries said their findings laid bare Britain's appalling record.
Five-year survival rates for early-stage breast cancer were only 78 per cent, against 97 per cent in the U.S. and 93 per cent across Europe.
Read more: Britain trails in cancer survival rates | Mail Online
What did I say exactly that was wrong?
I did not realize you said that American had worse heath outcomes and more deaths due to medical related errors despite costing 150% more
I didn't. I said, responding to your claim about England spending half per capita (you actually said capital, which is the wrong term) than we do, "They also have a lower survival rate of serious illnesses than we do and wait far longer to get care when sick and suffering."
Cancer patients in Britain have a far worse chance of surviving than those in any other country in the developed world, a shocking study reveals today.
Researchers who studied data covering millions of patients in dozens of countries said their findings laid bare Britain's appalling record.
Five-year survival rates for early-stage breast cancer were only 78 per cent, against 97 per cent in the U.S. and 93 per cent across Europe.
Read more: Britain trails in cancer survival rates | Mail Online
What did I say exactly that was wrong?
ROTFL so you cherry pick? Are you for real?
That first link is yours, not mine. Lets see socialized countries have less deaths due to medical errors so much that if the USA was just like them 75,000 Americans would not die a year, American health outcomes for respiratory health is 40% worse, tuberculosis is 10% worse, 50% more infant deaths, 30% more asthma deaths, 40% more years of life lost due to medical conditions, 100% more diabetes deaths, 50% more deaths by children taken to a hospital for a medical reason, more HIV preventable deaths, measles deaths. And you conclude that because America has less cancer deaths that they have better quality care.I didn't. I said, responding to your claim about England spending half per capita (you actually said capital, which is the wrong term) than we do, "They also have a lower survival rate of serious illnesses than we do and wait far longer to get care when sick and suffering."
What did I say exactly that was wrong?
ROTFL so you cherry pick? Are you for real?
The second is my own, but it's the same information you'll find anywhere. If you have evidence to the contrary you're more than welcome to provide it.
Lets see socialized countries have less deaths due to medical errors so much that if the USA was just like them 75,000 Americans would not die a year, American health outcomes for respiratory health is 40% worse, tuberculosis is 10% worse, 50% more infant deaths, 30% more asthma deaths, 40% more years of life lost due to medical conditions, 100% more diabetes deaths, 50% more deaths by children taken to a hospital for a medical reason, more HIV preventable deaths, measles deaths. And you conclude that because America has less cancer deaths that they have better quality care.ROTFL so you cherry pick? Are you for real?
The second is my own, but it's the same information you'll find anywhere. If you have evidence to the contrary you're more than welcome to provide it.
You got to be either stupid are a complete hack to say what you say.
Lets see socialized countries have less deaths due to medical errors so much that if the USA was just like them 75,000 Americans would not die a year, American health outcomes for respiratory health is 40% worse, tuberculosis is 10% worse, 50% more infant deaths, 30% more asthma deaths, 40% more years of life lost due to medical conditions, 100% more diabetes deaths, 50% more deaths by children taken to a hospital for a medical reason, more HIV preventable deaths, measles deaths. And you conclude that because America has less cancer deaths that they have better quality care.
The second is my own, but it's the same information you'll find anywhere. If you have evidence to the contrary you're more than welcome to provide it.
You got to be either stupid are a complete hack to say what you say.
Well that's all very interesting, it doesn't address the stats I provided.
Lets see socialized countries have less deaths due to medical errors so much that if the USA was just like them 75,000 Americans would not die a year, American health outcomes for respiratory health is 40% worse, tuberculosis is 10% worse, 50% more infant deaths, 30% more asthma deaths, 40% more years of life lost due to medical conditions, 100% more diabetes deaths, 50% more deaths by children taken to a hospital for a medical reason, more HIV preventable deaths, measles deaths. And you conclude that because America has less cancer deaths that they have better quality care.
You got to be either stupid are a complete hack to say what you say.
Well that's all very interesting, it doesn't address the stats I provided.
Yea it basically makes your stats and post look retarded.
Basically the UK in every health care outcome/measure performs better then America except cancer survival rates. So when you sa America has a better system when those facts are laid out everyone concludes that you are a dumbassWell that's all very interesting, it doesn't address the stats I provided.
Yea it basically makes your stats and post look retarded.
No, it doesn't. It has no bearing on what I said at all.
