The US has the best health care in the world?

**jimmysnyder** · Aug11-09, 05:14 AM

Free National Health Care =
Joe, Sarah, Bob, Emily, and Frank are sitting in the waiting room of the local NHS office as they do every day, discussing their grandchildren, their ailments, the long wait to see a doctor, and Amy who couldn't come today because she wasn't feeling well.

**Count Iblis** · Aug11-09, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Al68

Yeah, and France has more topless beaches, too. Must be related.

First, I think it is a prori reasonable to assume that there is a link between the health care system and life expectancy (although there are other factors that influence life expectancy as wel).

Second, I'm not sure that the 49 countries that have a higher life expectancy than the US, all have more topless beaches than the US.

**Count Iblis** · Aug11-09, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by jimmysnyder

Free National Health Care =
Joe, Sarah, Bob, Emily, and Frank are sitting in the waiting room of the local NHS office as they do every day, discussing their grandchildren, their ailments, the long wait to see a doctor, and Amy who couldn't come today because she wasn't feeling well.

More precisely, this belongs to the subset: "mismanaged free health care systems".

**mheslep** · Aug11-09, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Count Iblis

First, I think it is a prori reasonable to assume that there is a link between the health care system and life expectancy (although there are other factors that influence life expectancy as wel)....

Then why waste your time (and ours) with those conflicted measurements when instead one can go directly to purely health system related outcomes such as cancer survivor rates, transplant survivor rates and so on?

**Count Iblis** · Aug11-09, 10:45 AM

Originally Posted by mheslep

Then why waste your time (and ours) with those conflicted measurements when instead one can go directly to purely health system related outcomes such as cancer survivor rates, transplant survivor rates and so on?

The performance of the health care system should be judged by the net result. If in the US a lot of older man are diagnosed with prostate cancer which typically doesn't kill if left untreated, while in other countries less of these cancers are detected in the first place (becuase they don't do screening for these cancers), then obviously the US is going to have a seemingly higher "cancer survival rate".

Also, in the US many more people get skin cancer than in Europe. This is usually detected in early stages and usually doesn't lead to death.

**sylas** · Aug11-09, 10:53 AM

This is sort of relevant to the thread, though a bit of a laugh on the side. It is too good to pass up, and it is relevant both to physics and to health care systems...

From the "Investors Business Daily", editorial, July 31, 2009:

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

**mgb_phys** · Aug11-09, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by sylas

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.

You have to wonder if any US university could hire him with an existing medical condition.

**jimmysnyder** · Aug11-09, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by Count Iblis

More precisely, this belongs to the subset: "mismanaged free health care systems".

No, I think it would apply to anything that was free, whether health care system, or candy.

**avec_holl** · Aug11-09, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by jimmysnyder

Free National Health Care =
Joe, Sarah, Bob, Emily, and Frank are sitting in the waiting room of the local NHS office as they do every day, discussing their grandchildren, their ailments, the long wait to see a doctor, and Amy who couldn't come today because she wasn't feeling well.

How does this pertain to the current health care reform bill? The current bill would allow Joe, Sarah, Bob, Emily, Frank and Amy to keep private health care if they desired and does not cut funding from medicaid or medicare.

**mgb_phys** · Aug11-09, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by sylas

This is sort of relevant to the thread, though a bit of a laugh on the side. It is too good to pass up, and it is relevant both to physics and to health care systems...

From the "Investors Business Daily", editorial, July 31, 2009:

The same article also suggests doctors must be opposed to a free health care system because:

....Hippocratic Oath doctors take to first do no harm, compelling them "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others," thereby avoiding the inevitable move toward "socially sustainable, cost-effective care."

So good news - under a commercial system no doctor at a hospital or a managed care provider would ever; refuse or delay regardless of cost or effect on others.

**CRGreathouse** · Aug11-09, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by avec_holl

How does this pertain to the current health care reform bill? The current bill would allow Joe, Sarah, Bob, Emily, Frank and Amy to keep private health care if they desired and does not cut funding from medicaid or medicare.

Because Joe, Sarah, Bob, Emily, Frank and Amy will subsidize the system. Employer-funded healthcare (beyond a certain point) becomes taxable, unlike current law. And the smart money says money will come, directly or indirectly, from general funds as well.

The money doesn't come from nowhere.

**jimmysnyder** · Aug11-09, 09:08 PM

My little story was not about health care. It was about the value that people place on things that are 'free'.

**mgb_phys** · Aug11-09, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by jimmysnyder

My little story was not about health care. It was about the value that people place on things that are 'free'.

Funny but perhaps a little too subtle!

**Al68** · Aug11-09, 10:07 PM

Originally Posted by Count Iblis

The performance of the health care system should be judged by the net result. If in the US a lot of older man are diagnosed with prostate cancer which typically doesn't kill if left untreated, while in other countries less of these cancers are detected in the first place (becuase they don't do screening for these cancers), then obviously the US is going to have a seemingly higher "cancer survival rate".

Also, in the US many more people get skin cancer than in Europe. This is usually detected in early stages and usually doesn't lead to death.

So the cancer survival rate isn't indicative of the quality of care, but the overall life expectancy is? Life expectancy isn't a "net result" of health care quality. Cancer survival rates are, even if not a perfect indicator.

**mgb_phys** · Aug11-09, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Al68

So the cancer survival rate isn't indicative of the quality of care, but the overall life expectancy is?

Cancer cure rates might be, cancer survival rates just mean you were alive 5years after they declared 'cancer'.

Life expectancy isn't a "net result" of health care quality. Cancer survival rates are, even if not a perfect indicator.

Life expectancy is heavily dependant on childhood and neonatal health so it is also sensitive to nutrition and housing.
Cancer rates only measure those people that get cancer !

**Al68** · Aug11-09, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by avec_holl

The current bill would allow Joe, Sarah, Bob, Emily, Frank and Amy to keep private health care if they desired and does not cut funding from medicaid or medicare.

No, it won't, unless you call a private company participating in a government system "private health care". If someone gets a private insurance plan that does not qualify for the government system (because they are against subsidizing the types of things covered, or just because they only need insurance for the unexpected instead of a comprehensive health plan that covers everything under the sun), they will have to pay an income tax penalty (limited to the average cost of a qualifying plan, of course). Simply put, this bill assesses an income tax penalty against any American for failure to prove to government they have a "qualifying" plan. Whether or not the plan meets the standards of the person getting it is irrelevant. You call that "private health care"?

Allowed to keep their current plan, maybe. Allowed to ignore the new law and make their own choice without being penalized, no.

And being able to choose among the "government approved" choices doesn't count as freedom of choice despite the fraud and deception being perpetrated.

Of course the details aren't finalized, but I doubt if they will take out the part that says, "join this system or pay a stiff penalty".