10 Facts About American Health Care, (Plus 6 more stats!)

Come on guys, I just wanted to fuck with Dixie a little.

Ok, I rescind my infant mortality offering.
 
You are so exasperating Dixie. First your not paying attention to how run away cost affect outcomes. Cost is one of the major factors impacting outcomes or didn't you read the stats or the link I posted.
Click to expand...

Again for the retarded... How does INCREASING the cost of health care in America HELP? Because that is what the new HCR did, it INCREASED cost, not the other way around!
 
Infant mortality numbers in the US are driven by pre-mature births. These births are attributed to a number of causations; poverty in rural areas where there is limited access to health care; invitro fertalization; doctors performing early c-section deliveries; drug use.

An important side note: We also have technologies that enable us to save more pre-term babies than other countries.
 
First, the comparisons are made between the entire population of Canada or the United Kingdom or other countries with universal medical and the PAYING customers in the US. How long does a patient in the US wait to see a doctor when they can't afford to see a doctor? If a person calls a doctor's office and tells the receptionist they don't feel well but they don't have the money to pay the doctor how long do they stay on a waiting list? Six months? A year? Does the receptionist tell them that if they still can't pay for a doctor's visit after waiting six months they can come in for a free exam? How long do they stay on that waiting list, Dixie?
Click to expand...

And AGAIN, for the PROFOUNDLY retarded....

The new HCR bill WILL INCREASE COST OF HEALTH CARE!

The administration's chief actuary of the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services concluded that although the bill would accomplish Obama's goal of increasing overall healthcare insurance coverage, it would also increase overall healthcare spending even more than the increases expected in the then-current law:

Total national health expenditures in the U.S. during 2010-2019 would increase by about 0.7 percent. The additional demand for health services could be difficult to meet initially with existing health provider resources and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.

Chief Actuary Richard S. Foster concluded that while the new law would amount to “raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years,” he also concluded that many of the “cuts” in the bill were not realistic: “That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable.”
 
Superfreak said:
They are not 'fixed', they simply are not calculated in the same manner in each country. Which was my point... comparing apples to oranges and then proclaiming BANANAS! is not an accurate picture.
Click to expand...

Yeah, i know, SF:)

Then again comparisons between different healthcare systems around the world in an attempt to show that one is so much better than the other is rather pointless as well unless they all have identical budgets, priorities and modes of operating.

Controversially, the US system does some things well and some things terribly, just like ours does.
 
charver said:
Yeah, i know, SF:)

Then again comparisons between different healthcare systems around the world in an attempt to show that one is so much better than the other is rather pointless as well unless they all have identical budgets, priorities and modes of operating.

Controversially, the US system does some things well and some things terribly, just like ours does.
Click to expand...

Without question that is the case. We, for example, DO pay a lot more per capita than most other industrialized countries. In part it is due to our geographic diversification, in part due to our obesity levels, in part due to the technology available at most of our facilities, and of course in large part due to the insane levels of bureaucracy.
 
charver said:
Yeah, i know, SF:)

Then again comparisons between different healthcare systems around the world in an attempt to show that one is so much better than the other is rather pointless as well unless they all have identical budgets, priorities and modes of operating.

Controversially, the US system does some things well and some things terribly, just like ours does.
Click to expand...

Correction... The US system apparently does everything better than yours...

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after
diagnosis:

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Canada 42%


Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment
within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Canada 43%


Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six
months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Canada 43%


Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Canada 43%


Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Canada 18


Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in
"excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Canada 6%
 
Yes, Dix, your system is great and a model for every other nation in the world, which has copied it wholesale.

I'm glad you like it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top