3 ms·

What we have isn't really insurance, but health care supplements. Insurance is for unforeseen events. But US health insurance pays for regular checkups and proc

What we have isn't really insurance, but health care supplements. Insurance is for unforeseen events. But US health insurance pays for regular checkups and procedures. And I'll take our more expensive health care over any other system any day of the week. Because when the day comes when 1 of the 2 primary killers in the US comes for me (cancer and heart disease), no country in the world has better outcomes. And the US does it for a much more diverse, much larger, and unhealthy population. Cancer and heart disease outcomes are the best proxy for how well a health care system operates.

danharaj 11y ago
> Cancer and heart disease outcomes are the best proxy for how well a health care system operates. Maybe for you. There are plenty of other fundamental measures of health care quality, like infant mortality rate.
- merpnderp 11y ago
  Wouldn't infant mortality rates have a lot more to do with prenatal care in industrialized nations? I doubt more kids in the US are dying because of a lower standard of care and more likely because of more drug addicted/alcoholic/poorer nourished moms. Using infant mortality as a proxy in an industrialized nation is just hacking the stats. If you don't think such things matter, then explain how Hispanic women on the west coast have both the lowest access to health care and also the lowest death rate from cancer? DNA? Diet? Low stress? Could be. But either way, their exceptionally low cancer rates don't reflect upon the US health care system.
phkahler 11y ago
What if you moved somewhere with lower cancer rates in the first place?
- merpnderp 11y ago
  So I'd have less chance of getting cancer because I smoked less and rode bikes more, but if I did get cancer (and in the end nearly everyone in industrialized world dies of heart disease or cancer), I'll have a significantly lower chance of surviving? And what about breast cancer? The US kicks major arse in this regard, and breast cancer rates are pretty steady across countries.
  - phkahler 11y ago
    >> and breast cancer rates are pretty steady across countries No, they are not. See Japan. Eat your Kelp. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/02/02_kelp.shtml http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/02/02_kelp.... I find that one interesting because they suggest not to eat a lot of kelp in part due to the high iodine content. But lots of others (self included) believe the iodine is the key.
judemelancon 11y ago
Do you have a source for US outcomes being better? http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06/16/once-again-u-s-has-most-expensive-least-effective-health-care-system-in-survey/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06... http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-state-of-us-health-aint-so-good/ http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-state-of-us-...
- merpnderp 11y ago
  That was an interesting read, lots of good points. But I think that articles points are orthogonal to mine. I agree the US is a much less healthy place than many other industrialized countries. But that isn't a reflection on our health care industry, that's a cultural issue. If the US has a higher rate of breast cancer remission, but an even higher rate of breast cancer occurrence, that would reflect well on the health care system while resulting in a increased years of life lost. You're doctor can't make you stop being fat, he can't make you jog, and he can't make you stop stressing about not jogging and being fat :P But in the US he can give you an edge over other countries in beating cancer. It's an extremely tough problem to determine what is cultural causes, what is genetic, and what is health care. But just normalizing on age incidences, the US does well. I bet if we adjusted for relative health (impossible, but I'm wishing for perfect data), the US would do remarkably better. If I have time later today, I'll dig up my sources. But I lost interest in this years ago when people overwhelmingly thought that because the US has a higher mortality rate, our health care system must suck :/
mikepurvis 11y ago
I'll take our more expensive health care over any other system any day of the week. You pay almost twice as much per capita compared with Canada. Does it really all go toward better general care and longer lifespans? I don't have link handy, but my understanding is that a huge amount of it goes to the bureaucracy associated with competitive for-profit insurance (including bailouts and so-on), not to mention crisis treatment for those who have avoided proactive care for fear of a big bill or being prescribed unnecessary and expensive drugs. I'm not necessary dismissing your use of cancer and heart disease as proxies for care quality (dubious though that is), more just asking if you really think that that small gain is where the gigantic premium in US health care cost goes.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> And the US does it for a much more diverse, much larger, and unhealthy population. Cancer and heart disease outcomes are the best proxy for how well a health care system operates. Since the purpose of a health care system is to maintain the health of the population, overall population health is a much better thing to look to that micro outcomes from two particular events. And by overall health, as you yourself note, the US doesn't do particularly well compared to other developed countries, despite spending far more as a share of GDP than most (and much more per capita.) Your claim is a lot like claiming that an organization has a better software quality system than others because it fixes bugs in production slightly faster than others, even though it also allows far more bugs into production than the others.

danharaj 11y ago

> Cancer and heart disease outcomes are the best proxy for how well a health care system operates. Maybe for you. There are plenty of other fundamental measures of health care quality, like infant mortality rate.

merpnderp 11y ago
Wouldn't infant mortality rates have a lot more to do with prenatal care in industrialized nations? I doubt more kids in the US are dying because of a lower standard of care and more likely because of more drug addicted/alcoholic/poorer nourished moms. Using infant mortality as a proxy in an industrialized nation is just hacking the stats. If you don't think such things matter, then explain how Hispanic women on the west coast have both the lowest access to health care and also the lowest death rate from cancer? DNA? Diet? Low stress? Could be. But either way, their exceptionally low cancer rates don't reflect upon the US health care system.

phkahler 11y ago

What if you moved somewhere with lower cancer rates in the first place?

merpnderp 11y ago
So I'd have less chance of getting cancer because I smoked less and rode bikes more, but if I did get cancer (and in the end nearly everyone in industrialized world dies of heart disease or cancer), I'll have a significantly lower chance of surviving? And what about breast cancer? The US kicks major arse in this regard, and breast cancer rates are pretty steady across countries.
- phkahler 11y ago
  >> and breast cancer rates are pretty steady across countries No, they are not. See Japan. Eat your Kelp. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/02/02_kelp.shtml http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/02/02_kelp.... I find that one interesting because they suggest not to eat a lot of kelp in part due to the high iodine content. But lots of others (self included) believe the iodine is the key.

judemelancon 11y ago

Do you have a source for US outcomes being better? http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06/16/once-again-u-s-has-most-expensive-least-effective-health-care-system-in-survey/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/06... http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-state-of-us-health-aint-so-good/ http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-state-of-us-...

merpnderp 11y ago
That was an interesting read, lots of good points. But I think that articles points are orthogonal to mine. I agree the US is a much less healthy place than many other industrialized countries. But that isn't a reflection on our health care industry, that's a cultural issue. If the US has a higher rate of breast cancer remission, but an even higher rate of breast cancer occurrence, that would reflect well on the health care system while resulting in a increased years of life lost. You're doctor can't make you stop being fat, he can't make you jog, and he can't make you stop stressing about not jogging and being fat :P But in the US he can give you an edge over other countries in beating cancer. It's an extremely tough problem to determine what is cultural causes, what is genetic, and what is health care. But just normalizing on age incidences, the US does well. I bet if we adjusted for relative health (impossible, but I'm wishing for perfect data), the US would do remarkably better. If I have time later today, I'll dig up my sources. But I lost interest in this years ago when people overwhelmingly thought that because the US has a higher mortality rate, our health care system must suck :/

mikepurvis 11y ago

I'll take our more expensive health care over any other system any day of the week. You pay almost twice as much per capita compared with Canada. Does it really all go toward better general care and longer lifespans? I don't have link handy, but my understanding is that a huge amount of it goes to the bureaucracy associated with competitive for-profit insurance (including bailouts and so-on), not to mention crisis treatment for those who have avoided proactive care for fear of a big bill or being prescribed unnecessary and expensive drugs. I'm not necessary dismissing your use of cancer and heart disease as proxies for care quality (dubious though that is), more just asking if you really think that that small gain is where the gigantic premium in US health care cost goes.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> And the US does it for a much more diverse, much larger, and unhealthy population. Cancer and heart disease outcomes are the best proxy for how well a health care system operates. Since the purpose of a health care system is to maintain the health of the population, overall population health is a much better thing to look to that micro outcomes from two particular events. And by overall health, as you yourself note, the US doesn't do particularly well compared to other developed countries, despite spending far more as a share of GDP than most (and much more per capita.) Your claim is a lot like claiming that an organization has a better software quality system than others because it fixes bugs in production slightly faster than others, even though it also allows far more bugs into production than the others.