Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Ema, Mar 3, 2014.
I wonder if this graph was generated with data that was used to justify more gov't involvement in our health care system, I think WHO or OECD were where some of that faulty data came from? I remember reading some places that countries don't use the data of babies and younger children, therefore life expectancy looks longer for the costs. Garbage in= garbage out is the old saying!
Here is a link to a more right leaning publication:
The comments on both links are interesting.
This looks like a more impartial organization from their mission statement, and while it is more out of date, they are finding similar conclusions to the first graph.
"Compared to other developed nations, the U.S. spends more on health care per capita and devotes a greater share of its GDP to health. Since 1980, the U.S. also has had among the highest average annual growth rates in per capita spending on health care. Despite this relatively high level of spending, the U.S. does not appear to provide substantially greater health resources to its citizens,7or achieve substantially better health benchmarks, compared to other developed countries.8 "
I think they also address the baby issue in the first blog post.
"-Please stop with the “we define life differently at 24 weeks” thing. That’s been tested, and found not to be the cause of the infant mortality differences. Plus, we give the OECD this data. They don’t steal it in the middle of the night. If we really thought we were being measured unfairly, we could fix it."
Even if, for the sake of argument, the life-expectancy data is wrong (which I'm not conceding), that doesn't explain the ridiculously high per capita cost of healthcare compared to the rest of the Western world (which has similar healthcare standards to our own). It begs the question -- Where's all that money going?
You get one guess @SOC, and it's not the patients.
I would figure that people at the end of their lives, who have the wealth, are willing to spend it to live a little longer, so that would explain some of the money difference. And 3rd party paying is probably another big issue, people have been insensitive to costs, their insurance went up a little, but the insurance companies are forking over lots of the money, and they just pass that cost on to the companies that pay for the majority of some people's insurance bills. My former employer paid 85% of my insurance, and I only paid 15%!
I suffered from plantar fascitis at one point, and I went to a podiatrist, they did a bunch of testing, and ended up prescribing some shoe inserts which my insurance company supposedly paid $1000 per piece, so that was 2K. I have spoken to a few people since, and their podiatrist send them to some store and people pay about $50 for the shoe inserts! I only paid a co-pay of about $20 in all!
PS DId anyone read the Forbes article?
PS DId anyone read the Forbes article?[/quote]
I did! Even the comments!
I'm just not a big fan of Forbes. When I read things I actually have a lot of knowledge about, I often find troubling misstatements which makes me more suspicious of their findings in general unfortunately.
FWIW, I'm no fan of the ACA the way it stands now either. I think we need meaningful health insurance reform and that ain't it.
For a right leaning publication, that Forbes article reads like an argument for gun control!
From the data I've seen, it does seem like the NHS system is most efficient for most patients. I also think it has played an important role in the dis-empowering and manipulation of CFS patients in the UK.
good to hear, I don't read Forbes often, it was just the 1st article I found, I would imagine there are others. I think Kaiser is left of center and a blog is sometimes hard to determine, you have to read enough of their work, to get an idea of their leanings. I lean Libertarian/conservative the gov't has screwed me over enough!
Why do you say this? You know who else is for gun control? The greatest mass murderers of the 20th century!
What really blows my mind is the US spends more public money per capita than most countries with nationalized healthcare and then still get billed often crazy prices to use it.
The US's death rate for violent crimes and accidents is so much higher than elsewhere that it has a significant impact upon overall life expectancy. The argument seems to be "you can't blame our health system for the relatively low life expectancy... we kill ourselves in ways that have nothing to do with our health!"
It does seem that with a lot of this stuff, there are so many different factors at play that it's very difficult to say anything for sure.
The argument about violent crimes and accidents skewing the data has been shown not to actually affect the data by very much.
Reading the article makes this clear by referring to an earlier blog post.
Wow. To be honest, I'm surprised and then I'm not. America has such a bad reputation for people not getting the healthcare they deserve. It's not exactly a country the uk look up to when they want to improve the NHS.
Oh, people get the healthcare people think that they deserve here...it's just that you don't deserve it (in the eyes of about half the country) if you aren't wealthy.
Bootstraps, people, bootstraps!
Really? I'm glad I am in the US, and not the UK, go figure?! I'm sure there are people who would like to switch positions, but I feel there is more hope in the USA, and the bigger gains will probably come out of this country, due to our diversity of everything. Not sure what good monoliths are good at producing? Besides the same ole, same ole.
Peace out, and good luck!
Well, if your an illegal you can get most things for free, hospitals cannot deny you, and you cannot get blood from a stone, sure they can go after your assets, that is if you have assets!
I have read that there is a way to have a more "free market" and to take care of the poor, believe me I am not rich, but I don't want to impose on people a system that is not helpful, and just brings everyone else down with a useless system.
Perhaps if we had not pissed away so much wealth, we could have done this, not sure it is still possible with all of our debts and future obligations!?
Hospitals have to stabilize you but are under no further obligation to those who lack resources or insurance. They discharge those people in a hurry.
Remember the story of the woman who shot herself because she needed surgery and had no insurance. Well, they fixed the wound and left the original injury even though they could easily have fixed it at the same time.
I don't think socialized medicine is perfect but I don't think it is useless either.
And I agree about the pissing away of resources.
But I still think meaningful reform is possible in many ways, not just in the medical system. People just aren't apparently fed up enough and would rather argue about abortion and marriage equality instead of the issues that actually matter.
Knowledge is power, and if most people who are on this forum, were to regain most of their health, perhaps we could become a large part of a movement to concentrate on wellness, and reforms so that people held the power, not institutions, stake holders etc..
It would be nice if I didn't have to try so many modalities that did not help, but perhaps they helped other people? I tried acupuncture, a practitioner with chinese herbs and community, did not seem to bring lasting relief. Massage/myofascial is similar, but I still like to have them done on occasion. Myers cocktail, did not seem to do much for me when I was in a crash, but I liked having the option to try it, you never know, and some people have and continue to have success with that. That all I can think of at the moment, but I think you get the idea.
Revolution calling? Queensryche rocks!
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.