4 ms·
> Still though (and correct me if I'm wrong), but if you get sick tomorrow with some ailment for which treatment is complex (and therefore expensive) AND you d
by chimeracoder 8y ago
> Still though (and correct me if I'm wrong), but if you get sick tomorrow with some ailment for which treatment is complex (and therefore expensive) AND you don't have insurance - your options are to find the money or go bankrupt? That's nuts in 2018 in a wealthy democracy.
Treating complex conditions (like cancer) is exactly where the US excels, compared to other countries. Yes, it's expensive, but the alternative is, well, dying.
Since the grandparent mentioned the UK specifically, I'll point out that the US has dramatically higher survival rates for treatable forms of cancer than the UK does. For prostate cancer - generally one of the most treatable forms of cancer, if treated properly - people in the US have over a 90% chance of survival[0]. The UK, on the other hand, has absolutely abysmal surival rates - second-worst of all OECD countries, and a mortality-to-incidence ratio that's almost twice what you see in the US.
Yes, the US could do a better job at making that top-of-the-line care accessible to more people, but even then, the baseline care for complex treatments specifically is actually much higher than what the UK provides.
[0] That's over the entire population, so it's including people who are uninsured and can't afford the most expensive treatments.
- bacon_waffle 8y agoAs someone who emigrated from the US to New Zealand (where we have a socialised medicine system), I'm curious about the relationship between those survival rates, and the related diagnoses. Here in NZ, it seems like there's much less hesitation in a person going to the doctor in the first place, compared to the US, and I'd imagine that has some positive impact on the population. Perhaps there is a tradeoff between treatment of complex conditions, and treatment of more frequent but less complex conditions?