3 ms·

>I wonder if an argument could be made that given the USs propensity towards unhealthy lifestyles that the US is in fact great at healthcare because the life ex

>I wonder if an argument could be made that given the USs propensity towards unhealthy lifestyles that the US is in fact great at healthcare because the life expectancy is as high as it is? This is no argument to be made about the US having great health care. I don't know how a place where a random illness can wipe out your and your family's finances can even be considered first world. To address your specific claim "we must be good because we make horrible life choices and don't die!" I would point at the UK and alcohol consumption. Their bad life choices are driving costs up to the point that they'll probably have to make some big changes to deal with them but so far the system is doing a reasonable job of keeping them from dying from it.

matwood 16y ago
This is no argument to be made about the US having great health care. I don't know how a place where a random illness can wipe out your and your family's finances can even be considered first world. I didn't claim anything and simply wondered aloud. Also, the article was about life expectancy and quality of healthcare and spoke nothing about costs. Your statement does bring up another question. Would that same hypothetical family prefer to have their finances ruined or have their loved saved from some random illness? Of course the best solution is perfect care at zero cost, but I think we can agree that it is impossible. If the US is actually getting better health outcomes than other systems perhaps the cost is worth it? And to address your specific claim, I've always thought that the government should provide health related catastrophic fallback insurance similar to the way they do for floods. I don't think the government needs to be involved in the day to day healthcare or insurance matters, but I agree that getting cancer for example should not ruin your families finances.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  > Would that same hypothetical family prefer to have their finances ruined or have their loved saved from some random illness? False dichotomy. The US isn't so much vastly better that the choice is go there and be saved or stay in e.g. France and die. In fact all the sources I've shown seem to indicate the US isn't the best even if you can afford it. Keep in mind that doctors tend to make 3 times more than the average salary in their European "socialist" countries, just not 5 times like their US counterparts. >but I think we can agree that it is impossible Of course, it always costs, the question is just how much waste is going into giving huge bonuses, etc., to CEOs of insurance companies who make even more money by cutting people's coverage (insurance is a profitable business in its own right, these guys just want even more). >If the US is actually getting better health outcomes than other systems perhaps the cost is worth it? It it were we could discuss it. The reports from both the WHO and Berkely indicate pretty clearly that this isn't the case. >And to address your specific claim, I've always thought that the government should provide health related catastrophic fallback insurance similar to the way they do for floods. I don't think the government needs to be involved in the day to day healthcare or insurance matters, but I agree that getting cancer for example should not ruin your families finances. This sounds like something reasonable to look at. Just keep in mind that so many people are living paycheck to paycheck that even a surprise bill of $5k can be enough that they never recover from it.

matwood 16y ago

This is no argument to be made about the US having great health care. I don't know how a place where a random illness can wipe out your and your family's finances can even be considered first world. I didn't claim anything and simply wondered aloud. Also, the article was about life expectancy and quality of healthcare and spoke nothing about costs. Your statement does bring up another question. Would that same hypothetical family prefer to have their finances ruined or have their loved saved from some random illness? Of course the best solution is perfect care at zero cost, but I think we can agree that it is impossible. If the US is actually getting better health outcomes than other systems perhaps the cost is worth it? And to address your specific claim, I've always thought that the government should provide health related catastrophic fallback insurance similar to the way they do for floods. I don't think the government needs to be involved in the day to day healthcare or insurance matters, but I agree that getting cancer for example should not ruin your families finances.

loewenskind 16y ago
> Would that same hypothetical family prefer to have their finances ruined or have their loved saved from some random illness? False dichotomy. The US isn't so much vastly better that the choice is go there and be saved or stay in e.g. France and die. In fact all the sources I've shown seem to indicate the US isn't the best even if you can afford it. Keep in mind that doctors tend to make 3 times more than the average salary in their European "socialist" countries, just not 5 times like their US counterparts. >but I think we can agree that it is impossible Of course, it always costs, the question is just how much waste is going into giving huge bonuses, etc., to CEOs of insurance companies who make even more money by cutting people's coverage (insurance is a profitable business in its own right, these guys just want even more). >If the US is actually getting better health outcomes than other systems perhaps the cost is worth it? It it were we could discuss it. The reports from both the WHO and Berkely indicate pretty clearly that this isn't the case. >And to address your specific claim, I've always thought that the government should provide health related catastrophic fallback insurance similar to the way they do for floods. I don't think the government needs to be involved in the day to day healthcare or insurance matters, but I agree that getting cancer for example should not ruin your families finances. This sounds like something reasonable to look at. Just keep in mind that so many people are living paycheck to paycheck that even a surprise bill of $5k can be enough that they never recover from it.