Who has the Best Health Care in the World??

[MsWikia]

“The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world - it has the best emergency care system in the world. Advanced U.S. medical technology has not translated into better health statistics for its citizens; indeed, the U.S. ranks near the bottom in list after list of international comparisons. Part of the problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. Another part of the problem is that America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality among all rich nations, and poverty affects one's health much more than the limited ministrations of a formal health care system.”


Each system has its flaws, however if we look at our Health Care vs. other countries such as Canada, Australia, France, Cuba and/or the UK we fall short in just about every category:
-We have a lower life expectancy age

- We have the lowest amount of doctors and nurses per 1000 people

-We have the lowest percent of health care cost paid by the government

- We have the lowest paid maternity leave; I think we have 0 paid leave

-We have the highest death rate

- We have the highest infant mortality %

- We have the most expensive health care; doctors incomes are the highest compared to other countries

- We ranked last in access to health care, patient safety, timeliness of care, efficiency and equity<--Britain got the top score in overall rankings

France = ranked #1 in the world in 2001 by the World Health Organization; cost about $3500 per capital vs. U.S. $6,100 per person.
WHO Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland says: "The main message from this report is that the health and well-being of people around the world depend critically on the performance of the health systems that serve them. Yet there is wide variation in performance, even among countries with similar levels of income and health expenditure. It is essential for decision- makers to understand the underlying reasons so that system performance, and hence the health of populations, can be improved."

Australia = publicly- funded universal healthcare system, ranked #9

Cuba = treats health tourists: from Latin America, Europe, Canada and the U.S. for free, 2nd in the world in creating national networks in Blood Banks, Nephrology and Medical Images




So if almost every other nation or rich nation can afford to provide universal healthcare to its people, and from the stats it appears its beneficial, why can’t we???????

 

[jreeves]

“The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world - it has the best emergency care system in the world. Advanced U.S. medical technology has not translated into better health statistics for its citizens; indeed, the U.S. ranks near the bottom in list after list of international comparisons. Part of the problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. Another part of the problem is that America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality among all rich nations, and poverty affects one's health much more than the limited ministrations of a formal health care system.”


Each system has its flaws, however if we look at our Health Care vs. other countries such as Canada, Australia, France, Cuba and/or the UK we fall short in just about every category:
-We have a lower life expectancy age

- We have the lowest amount of doctors and nurses per 1000 people

-We have the lowest percent of health care cost paid by the government

- We have the lowest paid maternity leave; I think we have 0 paid leave

-We have the highest death rate

- We have the highest infant mortality %

- We have the most expensive health care; doctors incomes are the highest compared to other countries

- We ranked last in access to health care, patient safety, timeliness of care, efficiency and equity<--Britain got the top score in overall rankings

France = ranked #1 in the world in 2001 by the World Health Organization; cost about $3500 per capital vs. U.S. $6,100 per person.
WHO Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland says: "The main message from this report is that the health and well-being of people around the world depend critically on the performance of the health systems that serve them. Yet there is wide variation in performance, even among countries with similar levels of income and health expenditure. It is essential for decision- makers to understand the underlying reasons so that system performance, and hence the health of populations, can be improved."

Australia = publicly- funded universal healthcare system, ranked #9

Cuba = treats health tourists: from Latin America, Europe, Canada and the U.S. for free, 2nd in the world in creating national networks in Blood Banks, Nephrology and Medical Images




So if almost every other nation or rich nation can afford to provide universal healthcare to its people, and from the stats it appears its beneficial, why can’t we???????

But why does everyone in the world that can afford to do so, come to the US to receive the latest technology?

 

[MsWikia]

Technology means nothing if you don't use it properly.

However, thats the issue, we have all of this advanced technology but our people are in worse shape than others who have less technology?? Hence, our system is the problem.

 

[Larkinn]

But why does everyone in the world that can afford to do so, come to the US to receive the latest technology?

Because we have the most advanced healthcare procedures in the world.

We don't, however, have the best healthcare for our own population.

 

[jreeves]

Because we have the most advanced healthcare procedures in the world.

We don't, however, have the best healthcare for our own population.

What would happen to American medical innovation if UHC is passed, oh wait we can look to Canda or France right? Or we could all wait months to see a specialist? Or we could have our freedoms restricted due to a state run healthcare? We could be taxed beyond belief for coverage for "all"?

 

[Larkinn]

What would happen to American medical innovation if UHC is passed, oh wait we can look to Canda or France right?

Depends on what type. Some wouldn't effect it at all.

Or we could all wait months to see a specialist? Or we could have our freedoms restricted due to a state run healthcare? We could be taxed beyond belief for coverage for "all"?

Ah yes, the freedom to die because of lack of healthcare. Thats a freedom we really all need, eh?

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

But why does everyone in the world that can afford to do so, come to the US to receive the latest technology?

I think you answered your own question.

 

[manifold]

Technology means nothing if you don't use it properly.

However, thats the issue, we have all of this advanced technology but our people are in worse shape than others who have less technology?? Hence, our system is the problem.

Sure, I bet it's the system and has nothing to do with having a nation full of sedentary, video-game playing, soda-guzzling, over-eating, tv-watching lazy sacks of shit.

 

[MsWikia]

Sure, I bet it's the system and has nothing to do with having a nation full of sedentary, video-game playing, soda-guzzling, over-eating, tv-watching lazy sacks of shit.

LOL, don't get me wrong I agree that Americans have a lavish lifestyle. However, my point is not everyone has access to the same type of health care. Private industries are in control and their goal isn't a healthier America rather they are trying to get rich and keep their shareholders happy.

There is no excuse for a rich nation like the U.S to rank this low in health care, especially considering the level of technology we have; which brings me to my last point, if our current health care process or system is not working (based on the stats), why are we so reluctant to change it and try something new? i.e. universal healthcare

 

[manifold]

I call into question the rank rankings. (pun intended. )

 

[TheGoodShepherd]

LOL, don't get me wrong I agree that Americans have a lavish lifestyle. However, my point is not everyone has access to the same type of health care. Private industries are in control and their goal isn't a healthier America rather they are trying to get rich and keep their shareholders happy.

There is no excuse for a rich nation like the U.S to rank this low in health care, especially considering the level of technology we have; which brings me to my last point, if our current health care process or system is not working (based on the stats), why are we so reluctant to change it and try something new? i.e. universal healthcare

Streamlining the health bureaucracy saves the U.S. government money and takes away profits from private interests. Private interests hold a far greater chunk of power in the U.S. health infrastructure than the public's representatives.

Billions upon billions of subsidies are granted to HMO's each year. The reality remains clear to the serious health policy wonks.

Without sticking their noses in the trough, private health organizations would collapse because no one would join: their coverage is that bad without U.S. taxpayers footing a portion of their bill.

It was a major reason lobbyists acting on behalf of private health organizations pushed for legislation granting HMO's subsides in the first place.

The irony would be sweet if it wasn't so sad.

 

[MsWikia]

Services such as healthcare, corrections and the like lose their value when you allow money making institutions to run and govern them.

One thing that must be first understood is this. Private companies ALWAYS, in every way operate to make money, because by their very nature, they are designed to do such. This is perfectly acceptable in terms of Pepsi-Cola, Johnson and Johnson because there are a number of viable options for the consumer to either accept or reject. Conversely, in terms of the aforementioned services of healthcare and the corrections system, when these are placed into the hands of a money making institution, there very purpose of existence is negated at its core insomuch as they will no longer be run with the interest of the population in mind; rather, there sole allegiance will be towards money making. Accordingly, they will operate at the lowest possible level of effectiveness so that they can maximize profit.

If America adopted a wellness platform, where (like in France) doctors are paid for healthy patients and the entire industry was government run, the aim would be to minimize sickness, insomuch as sickness is a more costly proposition than wellness.

BUT, in America, the healthcare industry is privatized. The vast majority of doctors are in bed (figuratively speaking) with the pharmaceutical companies which make trillions of dollars every year by medicating disease and sickness. They would lose the shirt off of their very backs if America was healthy, and in turn, they aggressively lobby for politics which maintain their position in our society.

The same is true for the penal industry. (And its very sad that this is presently an industry). When corporations, with stocks and stockholders purchase and maintain a prison, guess what the stockholders want? Do they want reformed individuals that will never return to prison? God no! They run the prison in such a way to maximize recidivism, whereby the prison may remain fully occupied and they will continue to receive government subsidy.

These are but 2 of the many examples of the "privatization gone wrong". Normatively speaking, America is a country for the people, not for the high paying lobbyists; yet, sadly the reality is the opposite.

Now it is up to us to question our current vein of operation to see if it is more beneficial to America at large. One is not a socialist merely because we maintain that some industries should not be privatized, that in fact would make you more American.

 

[jreeves]

Services such as healthcare, corrections and the like lose their value when you allow money making institutions to run and govern them.
One thing that must be first understood is this. Private companies ALWAYS, in every way operate to make money, because by their very nature, they are designed to do such. This is perfectly acceptable in terms of Pepsi-Cola, Johnson and Johnson because there are a number of viable options for the consumer to either accept or reject. Conversely, in terms of the aforementioned services of healthcare and the corrections system, when these are placed into the hands of a money making institution, there very purpose of existence is negated at its core insomuch as they will no longer be run with the interest of the population in mind; rather, there sole allegiance will be towards money making. Accordingly, they will operate at the lowest possible level of effectiveness so that they can maximize profit.

If America adopted a wellness platform, where (like in France) doctors are paid for healthy patients and the entire industry was government run, the aim would be to minimize sickness, insomuch as sickness is a more costly proposition than wellness.

BUT, in America, the healthcare industry is privatized. The vast majority of doctors are in bed (figuratively speaking) with the pharmaceutical companies which make trillions of dollars every year by medicating disease and sickness. They would lose the shirt off of their very backs if America was healthy, and in turn, they aggressively lobby for politics which maintain their position in our society.

The same is true for the penal industry. (And its very sad that this is presently an industry). When corporations, with stocks and stockholders purchase and maintain a prison, guess what the stockholders want? Do they want reformed individuals that will never return to prison? God no! They run the prison in such a way to maximize recidivism, whereby the prison may remain fully occupied and they will continue to receive government subsidy.

These are but 2 of the many examples of the "privatization gone wrong". Normatively speaking, America is a country for the people, not for the high paying lobbyists; yet, sadly the reality is the opposite.

Very misinfromed and very wordy..

In 2003, of the roughly 3,900 nonfederal, short-term, acute care general hospitals in the United States,9 the majority—about 62 percent—were nonprofit. The rest included government hospitals (20 percent) and for-profit hospitals (18 percent).

 

[jreeves]

Services such as healthcare, corrections and the like lose their value when you allow money making institutions to run and govern them.
One thing that must be first understood is this. Private companies ALWAYS, in every way operate to make money, because by their very nature, they are designed to do such. This is perfectly acceptable in terms of Pepsi-Cola, Johnson and Johnson because there are a number of viable options for the consumer to either accept or reject. Conversely, in terms of the aforementioned services of healthcare and the corrections system, when these are placed into the hands of a money making institution, there very purpose of existence is negated at its core insomuch as they will no longer be run with the interest of the population in mind; rather, there sole allegiance will be towards money making. Accordingly, they will operate at the lowest possible level of effectiveness so that they can maximize profit.

If America adopted a wellness platform, where (like in France) doctors are paid for healthy patients and the entire industry was government run, the aim would be to minimize sickness, insomuch as sickness is a more costly proposition than wellness.

BUT, in America, the healthcare industry is privatized. The vast majority of doctors are in bed (figuratively speaking) with the pharmaceutical companies which make trillions of dollars every year by medicating disease and sickness. They would lose the shirt off of their very backs if America was healthy, and in turn, they aggressively lobby for politics which maintain their position in our society.

The same is true for the penal industry. (And its very sad that this is presently an industry). When corporations, with stocks and stockholders purchase and maintain a prison, guess what the stockholders want? Do they want reformed individuals that will never return to prison? God no! They run the prison in such a way to maximize recidivism, whereby the prison may remain fully occupied and they will continue to receive government subsidy.

These are but 2 of the many examples of the "privatization gone wrong". Normatively speaking, America is a country for the people, not for the high paying lobbyists; yet, sadly the reality is the opposite.

Very misinfromed and very wordy..

In 2003, of the roughly 3,900 nonfederal, short-term, acute care general hospitals in the United States,9 the majority—about 62 percent—were nonprofit. The rest included government hospitals (20 percent) and for-profit hospitals (18 percent).

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05743t.pdf

source for my last post

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yup our health care is so bad everyone that can afford to COMES to the United States for care. Paying for what is free in their own countries.

 

[Annie]

“The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world - it has the best emergency care system in the world. Advanced U.S. medical technology has not translated into better health statistics for its citizens; indeed, the U.S. ranks near the bottom in list after list of international comparisons. Part of the problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. Another part of the problem is that America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality among all rich nations, and poverty affects one's health much more than the limited ministrations of a formal health care system.”


Each system has its flaws, however if we look at our Health Care vs. other countries such as Canada, Australia, France, Cuba and/or the UK we fall short in just about every category:
-We have a lower life expectancy age

- We have the lowest amount of doctors and nurses per 1000 people

-We have the lowest percent of health care cost paid by the government

- We have the lowest paid maternity leave; I think we have 0 paid leave

-We have the highest death rate

- We have the highest infant mortality %

- We have the most expensive health care; doctors incomes are the highest compared to other countries

- We ranked last in access to health care, patient safety, timeliness of care, efficiency and equity<--Britain got the top score in overall rankings

France = ranked #1 in the world in 2001 by the World Health Organization; cost about $3500 per capital vs. U.S. $6,100 per person.
WHO Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland says: "The main message from this report is that the health and well-being of people around the world depend critically on the performance of the health systems that serve them. Yet there is wide variation in performance, even among countries with similar levels of income and health expenditure. It is essential for decision- makers to understand the underlying reasons so that system performance, and hence the health of populations, can be improved."

Australia = publicly- funded universal healthcare system, ranked #9

Cuba = treats health tourists: from Latin America, Europe, Canada and the U.S. for free, 2nd in the world in creating national networks in Blood Banks, Nephrology and Medical Images




So if almost every other nation or rich nation can afford to provide universal healthcare to its people, and from the stats it appears its beneficial, why can’t we???????

Which is it? Every other nation? Or Rich Nation? How do they do between groups served? How does the US do? What about the mean or average? How do they do? What about the 'lowest groups'? US vs World?

 

[Rhys]

Yup our health care is so bad everyone that can afford to COMES to the United States for care. Paying for what is free in their own countries.

Well, when I thought of doing research in the States everyone told me I'd be off my head - if I fell dangerously ill, I and my family would be financially ruined for life. Do the unbelievably rich go there for treatment? I've heard that those who have paid huge sums for insurance are treated quite well if they fall ill, but I've never met anyone who'd have dreamed of going there for treatment by choice. Those who want to jump the queue or show off can get private treatment here, after all, and the rest get decent treatment anyway, just a little later.

 

[Rhys]

Further to my previous posting, did anyone read the American Human Development Report, which featured in yesterday's Guardian? It says that 'despite spending $230m an hour on healthcare, Americans live shorter lives than citizens of almost every developed country.' With the second highest income per head in the world, the 'States ranks
42nd in terms of life expectancy. It is 34th in terms of infants surviving to age one as well, and, incidentally, has a higher percentage of children living in poverty than any of the world's richest countries.

The US has many and great virtues, but capitalist healthcare in not amongst them, I think. The UK does a much better job at about half the cost.

 

[CA95380]

I would have never belived that I could be a Michael Moore fan until I watched his movie ...... Sicko!

If you have not seen it .... rent it! It sure opened my eyes!

 

[AllieBaba]

“The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world - it has the best emergency care system in the world. Advanced U.S. medical technology has not translated into better health statistics for its citizens; indeed, the U.S. ranks near the bottom in list after list of international comparisons. Part of the problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. Another part of the problem is that America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality among all rich nations, and poverty affects one's health much more than the limited ministrations of a formal health care system.”


Each system has its flaws, however if we look at our Health Care vs. other countries such as Canada, Australia, France, Cuba and/or the UK we fall short in just about every category:
-We have a lower life expectancy age

- We have the lowest amount of doctors and nurses per 1000 people

-We have the lowest percent of health care cost paid by the government

- We have the lowest paid maternity leave; I think we have 0 paid leave

-We have the highest death rate

- We have the highest infant mortality %

- We have the most expensive health care; doctors incomes are the highest compared to other countries

- We ranked last in access to health care, patient safety, timeliness of care, efficiency and equity<--Britain got the top score in overall rankings

France = ranked #1 in the world in 2001 by the World Health Organization; cost about $3500 per capital vs. U.S. $6,100 per person.
WHO Director-General Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland says: "The main message from this report is that the health and well-being of people around the world depend critically on the performance of the health systems that serve them. Yet there is wide variation in performance, even among countries with similar levels of income and health expenditure. It is essential for decision- makers to understand the underlying reasons so that system performance, and hence the health of populations, can be improved."

Australia = publicly- funded universal healthcare system, ranked #9

Cuba = treats health tourists: from Latin America, Europe, Canada and the U.S. for free, 2nd in the world in creating national networks in Blood Banks, Nephrology and Medical Images"

So if almost every other nation or rich nation can afford to provide universal healthcare to its people, and from the stats it appears its beneficial, why can’t we???????

Link, please.