# What country is really the best for the individual?

• News
Originally posted by Monique
The Netherlands has the best healthy care/ social security system.

From a purely health care perspective, Cubaa is a better place than the US. The life expectancy is equal or surpasses ours and the infant mortality rate is lower than most major cities in the US. Here is a link. By the way, some great medical research also coming out of this country. In addition, the ratio of doctors to patients is very high vs. other countries such as England. In fact, here in Georgia the average doc has close to 5,000 active patients and those in the academia close to 10,000. see link http://64.21.33.164/CNews/y01/sep01/10e3.htm

Last edited by a moderator:
Monique
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
There are many countries that would be better than the US.

When I was in the US I was refused by 7 doctors because they didn't like my insurance (there was nothing wrong with my insurance).

The doctor that DID want to see me, gave me some trial medicine packages (which ofcourse didn't help my condition).

Or the fact you have to wait for 2.5 hours past your appointment time to see the doctor.

Or the fact that you have to wait 2 months to find out the results of a simple blood test.

I could go on? But that is a different story.

Originally posted by Monique
There are many countries that would be better than the US.

When I was in the US I was refused by 7 doctors because they didn't like my insurance (there was nothing wrong with my insurance).

The doctor that DID want to see me, gave me some trial medicine packages (which ofcourse didn't help my condition).

Or the fact you have to wait for 2.5 hours past your appointment time to see the doctor.

Or the fact that you have to wait 2 months to find out the results of a simple blood test.

I could go on? But that is a different story.

So sorry to hear that! Yet, many Americans fight a more socialized medicine or major changes because they view any other medical system as involving long lines and waits! It is already happening as you have found out! (I must say, the 2 months deal for the lab work was ridiculous. If our patients haven't heard in 7 days they are told to call and we will have the answer within 2hrs.) As for docs not taking insurance, I had to fire one HMO after not being paid for 3 years on any of their 500 patients I treated. It was a hard decision considering many were long time patients but with rent at $25,000 a month,401 retirement plans and providing health insurance plans for all employees (30 in all), almost half our salaries paying malpractice (that's never being sued!) etc.and contuing to take Medicaid and uninsured patients, the HMO had to go. I am in favor of a Nationalized health insurance as are many docs (there was a poll in the recent Annals of Internal Medicine) which would be a logical step towards ensuring universal health care access. However, the United States will never be able to completely transform into a purely socialized medical system due to the fact that we are a lawsuit happy society. Though there are legitamite malpractice suits, many are frivolous. In a socialized medical system none of these 10 to 250 million dollar rewards for non-economic damages would be allowed. I don't think the American population wants to give up their right to sue! How sad! Last edited: Monique Staff Emeritus Science Advisor Gold Member Yes, I have heard many bad stories about the US medical system from people I have talked to. The two months waiting for a blood test result is serious, the analysis is done in two days, but there was just noone there willing to tell the results. Ofcourse, I argued with the receptionist for like half an hour and finally it was resolved, but they would've send me home to wait for two months! The irony of the situation is that the US probably has the best doctors and technology.. the system is just very inaccessible due to law suits, problems with insurance and patient load. Staff Emeritus Gold Member i was denied health insurance because i was pregnant 4 years ago...i ended up "buying" a county plan through maricopa county arizona to have my son...i received excellent care and only had to pay$125 a month for 10 months...

Sorry to get off topic again, but I have to defend myself. You guys wholly misconstrued what I said. I said:
...if you charge a reasonable amount for a product but pay the workers little or nothing, of course the GDP is going to be big.
The italicized part is important. What I mean is that you sell a product for about the average amount. Your material costs will be the same no matter what we'll assume. But you pay the workers very little. (Oh, and by 'you' I mean the collective business owners of a country.) From this we can get a vague inequality:
[I-(M+w)]>[I-(M+W)]
where I is the income from your product, M is the cost of materials, the parts inside the brackets on each side is your profit, w is the very little you pay the workers, and W is the minimum wage you should feel is ethical to pay your workers (but obviously don't).
What this shows is that you, the collective business owners of some country, will benefit by paying your workers very little and pocketing the cash you saved by doing so.
This I feel is self evident, one really needn't take a class to get it.

Njorl
You don't know how to calculate GDP. It is the sum total of all goods and services. The value of the goods is considered to be the sale price minus production cost. The production costs also contribute to GDP. If costs are low, the good value is high. Whether you pay your workers a little or a lot, the effect on GDP is determined by the final price charged for the goods.

Njorl

Nereid
Staff Emeritus