ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 1893
Mar 8 12 5:02 AM
WarshipAdmin wrote:"Are there any other countries that use a mostly for-profit/provider run system to compare to the US? " Hang on, whenever this comes up people point out that nobody in the USA ever /needs/ to spend ther own money on medical care (or somesuch, ie if you walk into a hospital they have to treat you). So how much of USA healthcare spending is from state or federal funds, and how much is from health insurance, and how much is direct payment?
Posts: 1820
Mar 8 12 5:25 AM
Cody2 wrote: WarshipAdmin wrote: But it is a bit of a daft question, frankly, because anecdotes aren't data. The data says that on average USAns pay a great deal for their health system and get surprisingly poor outcomes on average. Is anyone disputing that, based on a serious analysis?I am. There are highly non heterogeneous populations in the US. Just the change in diet from Texas to New York has a HUGE impact on the regions health. The differences in culture in between the various regions are simply huge. There are a minimum of 50 different health care regulatory environments in the US.
WarshipAdmin wrote: But it is a bit of a daft question, frankly, because anecdotes aren't data. The data says that on average USAns pay a great deal for their health system and get surprisingly poor outcomes on average. Is anyone disputing that, based on a serious analysis?
Posts: 5924
Mar 8 12 5:49 AM
FreshAirSnipe wrote:FWIW the WHO consistently ranks the USA in the 30's for world health care quality comparison; so we're better than most, but not the best by any means. (Saying this as someone who works in the Allied Health area) In terms of capitalist/socialist being better, there are so many positive or negative points for each side it's difficult to say. Are there any other countries that use a mostly for-profit/provider run system to compare to the US?
Mar 8 12 5:53 AM
Posts: 1557
WarshipAdmin wrote:Cody2 wrote: WarshipAdmin wrote: But it is a bit of a daft question, frankly, because anecdotes aren't data. The data says that on average USAns pay a great deal for their health system and get surprisingly poor outcomes on average. Is anyone disputing that, based on a serious analysis?I am. There are highly non heterogeneous populations in the US. Just the change in diet from Texas to New York has a HUGE impact on the regions health. The differences in culture in between the various regions are simply huge. There are a minimum of 50 different health care regulatory environments in the US. So post data to support your opinion. You seem to be claiming that there are areas of the USA where the population receives better than average healthcare for less than average cost. If so, great, let's identify those places and use them as models. But you need data, not anecdotes.
Mar 8 12 5:58 AM
Posts: 3601
Mar 8 12 6:17 AM
Surely it's about finding the right balance between public (i.e. government, which is the taxpayer) funded health and private (the consumer) funded health? One extreme or the other just does not work.Here, we have a great public health system - Medicare - which covers everyone for medical care, but, yes, it has waiting lists for procedures defined as "elective" (includes everything from breast reconstructions to hip replacements).The government actively encourages people who can afford to do so to have private health insurance through a carrot and stick approach. If you earn above a certain level and you don't have private cover, then you get stung with a Medicare Surcharge Levy. If you do have private health insurance, the government pays you a rebate on your premiums.If you have private health insurance and use it then you save the government money and also avoid longer waiting times for the non life-threatening elective surgeries, while also getting assistance with allied health services that aren't covered by Medicare or that aren't covered to a significant degree (such as dental or optical).It's a good balance, not an inexpensive one, but a good balance.Where we have debate in Australia is on that provision of government funds to encourage people to have private health insurance. Some (on the left of our political spectrum) refer to is as middle class welfare. While others (my right of centre party) see it as smart policy designed to lessen the burden on the public system. That's where our debate stands.One of the greatest advantages of our system - versus the US - as I see it, is that employers have nothing to do with it. You pay your taxes and that helps provide Medicare. If you want private health insurance you pay that out of your own pocket. I imagine it's an historical legacy that US employers provide health insurance but it's not a positive one. It makes a complex issue all the more complex.
Mar 8 12 6:30 AM
Posts: 13072
Mar 8 12 6:39 AM
Air Boss
WarshipAdmin wrote:But it is a bit of a daft question, frankly, because anecdotes aren't data. The data says that on average USAns pay a great deal for their health system and get surprisingly poor outcomes on average. Is anyone disputing that, based on a serious analysis?
Mar 8 12 11:24 AM
Mar 8 12 11:49 AM
Posts: 3368
Mar 8 12 2:31 PM
Cody2 wrote:WarshipAdmin wrote:But it is a bit of a daft question, frankly, because anecdotes aren't data. The data says that on average USAns pay a great deal for their health system and get surprisingly poor outcomes on average. Is anyone disputing that, based on a serious analysis?I am. There are highly non heterogeneous populations in the US. Just the change in diet from Texas to New York has a HUGE impact on the regions health. The differences in culture in between the various regions are simply huge. There are a minimum of 50 different health care regulatory environments in the US. The next most populous developed nation to the US is Japan. It has a population far less than half, with a highly unique and amazingly homogeneous culture compared to the US. Next is Germany, it has less than 1/3rd the population of the US, and a similarly amazingly homogeneous culture.Pick a subset of 127 million Americans, and you could almost certainly pick a subset that has as good of care, or better care than any other industrialized nation. The cost of care changes wildly from region to region. Some regions are likely well within international norms. Some are well above. There are also vast differences in the cost of care depending on how people behave. If they take care of themselves, and pay attention to their costs, their care costs are FAR FAR lower than if they don't.There is simply no way to accurately compare a nation with 300 million people that have highly different genetic history, and wide ranging culture to nations with 127 million or less. It just doesn't work. The closest comparason might be Canada. Some what similar population groups, but only 34 million people. That's about the population of California (37million). So maybe Canada vs California? Don't think that's exactly fair as CA has some of the highest care costs in the nation, and a care system that I rather disagree with.
Posts: 3149
Mar 8 12 4:46 PM
Posts: 4254
Mar 8 12 6:11 PM
WarshipAdmin wrote: no, you can't use anecdotal evidence to prove anything much, that's what the warmista do with AGW.Stats is the only way.
Mar 8 12 7:55 PM
sergeante wrote: WarshipAdmin wrote: no, you can't use anecdotal evidence to prove anything much, that's what the warmista do with AGW.Stats is the only way.That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Some AGW believers use anecdotal data. But so do many skeptics. But the "science" in AGW is based on statistical anlysis of the available data. Of course, there are major questions about the data's validity and applicability.The application of statistics to health care issues has even worse problems. At least the climate debate focusses on an agreed metric -- global mean temperature. In healthcare statistics, there are no universally accepted metrics. People pick and support metrics that support whatever their agenda is. And the data is almost always incomplete, or inconsistent, or tailored.
Posts: 4105
Mar 8 12 10:49 PM
Mar 9 12 1:07 AM
Mar 9 12 1:26 AM
Posts: 4341
Mar 9 12 1:30 AM
Mar 9 12 1:59 AM
Share This