10 ms·

Look at infant mortality for college educated people in the two countries. Much more interesting. The US has massive population segments on drugs and other segm

Look at infant mortality for college educated people in the two countries. Much more interesting. The US has massive population segments on drugs and other segments here illegal that dont get medical care. Generally if you are well off, the US is a fine place to be. If you are addicted or poor, it's not so great.

alkonaut 10y ago
Healthcare alone is just one piece of the puzzle. Having a french style healthcare system without corresponding safety nets in other areas to fight poverty/addiction/inequality etc would be better than the status quo, but not very effective.
- kweinber 10y ago
  Important to note that the opioid addiction epidemic is actually exacerbated by flaws in the US healthcare system, so adoption of standards from France or elsewhere could help with that too.
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    Not to mention how many people need addiction treatment and/or psychiatric care who are instead incarcerated.
jdietrich 10y ago
The drug problem is intimately related to the healthcare problem. America's private system is absolutely lousy at preventative medicine and public health. In most of Europe, it's easy to get into rehab even if you're destitute. We have drug workers out on the streets providing advice, clean needles and referrals to other healthcare services. Homeless addicts still have access to exactly the same services as anyone else. The death toll from addiction falls remarkably quickly if there's a concerted effort to abate it. We also avoided the opiate epidemic that is currently blighting the US - pill mills simply don't exist when there's no profit motive to dole out opiates like tic-tacs. Setting aside the obvious humanitarian issues, failing to address the healthcare needs of the very poorest is costing the American taxpayer dearly. The economic benefits of preventative medicine and social care were described better than I could in Gladwell's essay "Million Dollar Murray". http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/13/million-dollar-murray http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/13/million-dollar-...
marcus_holmes 10y ago
having some kind of health problem is a great way to suddenly not be wealthy in the US, too. I think this is the real benefit of socialised health care. Your wealth will survive a health problem. You will not lose your house because you got cancer. Health insurance works when it works (I have some), but when they decide they're not going to pay your bills, for whatever reason, and you have to pay the bills to keep the doctors working until you can take the insurer to court, then it's a nightmare. Socialised health care avoids this.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  > Your wealth will survive a health problem. Really? Maybe a long duration but highly curable health problems. What happens to the blind or someone who loses both arms? Do they really have more wealth than their counterparts in the US?
  - marcus_holmes 10y ago
    yes, their existing wealth will survive (to allow them to adapt their life to their new condition, probably).
    - brianwawok 10y ago
      Less than 30% of Americans have more than $1000 in savings http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/10/09/savings-study/91083712/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/10/... I can almost guarantee that nearly all of the 30% of Americans WITH savings have health insurance with an out of pocket max. I can almost guarantee that many of the people without insurance are in the no savings group. So perhaps I am missing something, but I am not seeing a huge group of Americans that have their wealth in danger by the current healthcare system.
      - marcus_holmes 10y ago
        Wait, what? so your serious answer to "the US system of healthcare endangers the wealth of patients" is that over 70% of Americans don't have wealth anyway? And furthermore, that the system doesn't affect them because they're not part of it? What do the 70% of Americans with no savings do when they get sick?

alkonaut 10y ago

Healthcare alone is just one piece of the puzzle. Having a french style healthcare system without corresponding safety nets in other areas to fight poverty/addiction/inequality etc would be better than the status quo, but not very effective.

kweinber 10y ago
Important to note that the opioid addiction epidemic is actually exacerbated by flaws in the US healthcare system, so adoption of standards from France or elsewhere could help with that too.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  Not to mention how many people need addiction treatment and/or psychiatric care who are instead incarcerated.

jdietrich 10y ago

The drug problem is intimately related to the healthcare problem. America's private system is absolutely lousy at preventative medicine and public health. In most of Europe, it's easy to get into rehab even if you're destitute. We have drug workers out on the streets providing advice, clean needles and referrals to other healthcare services. Homeless addicts still have access to exactly the same services as anyone else. The death toll from addiction falls remarkably quickly if there's a concerted effort to abate it. We also avoided the opiate epidemic that is currently blighting the US - pill mills simply don't exist when there's no profit motive to dole out opiates like tic-tacs. Setting aside the obvious humanitarian issues, failing to address the healthcare needs of the very poorest is costing the American taxpayer dearly. The economic benefits of preventative medicine and social care were described better than I could in Gladwell's essay "Million Dollar Murray". http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/13/million-dollar-murray http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/13/million-dollar-...

marcus_holmes 10y ago

having some kind of health problem is a great way to suddenly not be wealthy in the US, too. I think this is the real benefit of socialised health care. Your wealth will survive a health problem. You will not lose your house because you got cancer. Health insurance works when it works (I have some), but when they decide they're not going to pay your bills, for whatever reason, and you have to pay the bills to keep the doctors working until you can take the insurer to court, then it's a nightmare. Socialised health care avoids this.

brianwawok 10y ago
> Your wealth will survive a health problem. Really? Maybe a long duration but highly curable health problems. What happens to the blind or someone who loses both arms? Do they really have more wealth than their counterparts in the US?
- marcus_holmes 10y ago
  yes, their existing wealth will survive (to allow them to adapt their life to their new condition, probably).
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    Less than 30% of Americans have more than $1000 in savings http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/10/09/savings-study/91083712/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2016/10/... I can almost guarantee that nearly all of the 30% of Americans WITH savings have health insurance with an out of pocket max. I can almost guarantee that many of the people without insurance are in the no savings group. So perhaps I am missing something, but I am not seeing a huge group of Americans that have their wealth in danger by the current healthcare system.
    - marcus_holmes 10y ago
      Wait, what? so your serious answer to "the US system of healthcare endangers the wealth of patients" is that over 70% of Americans don't have wealth anyway? And furthermore, that the system doesn't affect them because they're not part of it? What do the 70% of Americans with no savings do when they get sick?