Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15Yeah, I have to say that bearing in mind the specific criteria of this study, it does remind me a bit of the survey which found that Vanuatu was the happiest nation on earth because they had factored in its minimal impact on the natural environment.
So if you were ill you'd be way better off in Libya (#11) than Denmark (#38)?
Sorry, I just don't think so.
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15The list is comparing cost vs overall benefit, supposedly how much you pay to achieve a given life expectancy.
Now I get it:
"More efficient" does not mean better. Some of those countries rated higher than the US have pretty crappy medical care for the general population. But it's *kewl* here to dump on the US.
Googling "Libya life expectancy" gives me "74.95 years (2011)"
Googling "US life expectancy" gives me "78.64 years (2011)"
So despite your protestations about the quality of care, the life expectancies are not that much different.
So the question is, how much more do you pay in the US to get those extra 4 years of life?
1 edit
Here is a 2010 report by the Commonwealth Fund, which includes broader measures across seven developed nations:
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/News-Releases/2010/Jun/US-Ranks-Last-Among-Seven-Countries.aspx
A power-point comparison of a broader range of measures for the U.S. versus selected OECD countries (based mostly on OECD data) can be found here:
http://www.learningace.com/doc/2774719/355350c433cfad51bd1308e80c6af31a/ahc_asset_134224
—A clearer view of the PPT can be had by Googling “comparing healthcare systems university of Minnesota”.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt's actually quite easy to get life expectancy to 70+ with minimal health care and sanitation - it only becomes expensive after that. The problem in the US is that people are obese, which both increases costs and reduces life expectancy.
The list is comparing cost vs overall benefit, supposedly how much you pay to achieve a given life expectancy.
Googling "Libya life expectancy" gives me "74.95 years (2011)"
Googling "US life expectancy" gives me "78.64 years (2011)"
So despite your protestations about the quality of care, the life expectancies are not that much different.
So the question is, how much more do you pay in the US to get those extra 4 years of life?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell maybe Libya has had the sense to put an effort into discouraging obesity. Or maybe it their luck with regards to culture. Or maybe its still coming for them.
The problem in the US is that people are obese, which both increases costs and reduces life expectancy.
If you Google "Libya life expectancy" you can see that it is far from being stabilized so clearly it is difficult to make too many conclusions based on current conditions as it will be different in the near future. It may also be that they have a very different population age range so the spending per person will be very different simply because they are different ages.
What we really need is average spending per person of a given age vs life expectancy but even that would not be perfect.
Originally posted by twhiteheadLOL...
Well maybe Libya has had the sense to put an effort into discouraging obesity. Or maybe it their luck with regards to culture. Or maybe its still coming for them.
If you Google "Libya life expectancy" you can see that it is far from being stabilized so clearly it is difficult to make too many conclusions based on current conditions as it will be differen ...[text shortened]... verage spending per person of a given age vs life expectancy but even that would not be perfect.
Africans are skinny because they have good sense and discourage obesity. Right...
Or maybe it's because food is too hard to get in Africa?
4 edits
the top 10 must be getting something right, cool site too.
Profit motive made me a good laptop but doesn't make good hospitals, Its morbid how some treatments cost a house or more. Used to do sales and health in the hands of a top salesman, think that's what goes wrong with the US system? I read up a little on Obamacare and it's aimed at a swathe of the country not protected at present.
I don't trust the data - it put UK at 14 and Mexico at 15 doesn't sound right to me.
Originally posted by joe beyserYes, a core of the ACA is address cost and inefficiencies. The US will move up on the list. A single-payer system like in the other industrialized countries would be even better
Do you think Obamacare will change this for the better?
As it is now pre-ACA, the US spends massive money per capita on healthcare with mediocre life expectancy. The incredibly inefficient and high-overhead private medical insurance does not help.
Originally posted by e4chrisAs noted by you and others the data presents some incredible and unbelievable conflicts.
the top 10 must be getting something right, cool site too.
Profit motive made me a good laptop but doesn't make good hospitals, Its morbid how some treatments cost a house or more. Used to do sales and health in the hands of a top salesman, think that's what goes wrong with the US system? I read up a little on Obamacare and it's aimed at a swathe of the c ...[text shortened]... resent.
I don't trust the data - it put UK at 14 and Mexico at 15 doesn't sound right to me.
"Profit motive made me a good laptop but doesn't make good hospitals, Its morbid how some treatments cost a house or more."
One of the reasons that good laptops keep dropping in price is the profit motive. They must be sold to those who don't have one because they couldn't afford the high older price tag. Mass marketing has to be aimed at lower income groups as there aren't enough wealthy to make profits. Health care costs remain high precisely because market laws are taken off the table. The poor and middle class can now "afford" the extravagant prices, so there is no pressure to reduce the costs and profits.
The US system is very much the same as European socialized systems for most people, either insured, or in government programs like Medicare or Medicaid. Few are really in the free market, bargaining for their services. Those that are, and are aware can get prices far lower than what is mandated, or approved for payment by insurance companies.
Obama care (ACA) very clumsily attempts to use market forces, combined with government mandates to force coverage on the uncovered, and sometimes uncoverable. In so doing it has created all sorts of unpredicted and unforseeable reactions, as speaker Pelosi famously said, "you'll have to pass it to see what it does".
It will see to it that some uninsured people get covered, but at the same time will leave others uninsured that previously had coverage, and a lot more scratching their heads and asking why.
Originally posted by normbenignSouth Africa has quite a large 'medical tourism' industry.
I seriously doubt that people in some of the lower rated nations will be going elsewhere for their care.
If travel were free, and medicine was paid for on the spot, a lot more people would travel to other nations for healthcare or have their medication imported. But if you pay for your medication via insurance companies, you can't travel for your health care. Also, many types of health care are urgent and travel is not an option.
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignDoes it worry you there's big section of the country that the insurers don't want to cover , incl those in a big company but lower wages? Do Medicare and Medicaid provide enough cover?
As noted by you and others the data presents some incredible and unbelievable conflicts.
"Profit motive made me a good laptop but doesn't make good hospitals, Its morbid how some treatments cost a house or more."
One of the reasons that good laptops keep dropping in price is the profit motive. They must be sold to those who don't have one because t ...[text shortened]... rs uninsured that previously had coverage, and a lot more scratching their heads and asking why.
I like the site the data comes from, re the UK and Mexico I remember reading Mexico has less strict drug regulations then the US, making a lot of pills cheaper. That might make the cost of treatment good, but the hospitals I'm sure the UK is better. The US must do bad in these stats for high costs mainly.