5 ms·

> You don’t cite any evidence to support your claim. Most U.S. doctors graduate with >$100K in medical education debt. You posted a source yourself: https://n

> You don’t cite any evidence to support your claim. Most U.S. doctors graduate with >$100K in medical education debt. You posted a source yourself: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more-for-health-care-with-worse-population-health-outcomes/ https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/03/u-s-pays-more... Salaries are almost twice as high. Those other countries also tend to have higher taxes and other salary deductions, so doctors earn less. > Other countries have better health outcomes, so that pretty much kills your “worse service” claim. No it doesn't. Not every US citizen actually receives the service, because they want to (or have to) save money, kicking the problem down the road, exacerbating the issue. Americans also tend to be more obese. You call the "cancer survival" rate a cherry pick, but it's actually a good indicator how good the actual treatment is and how timely it is administered. > Rob Delaney is a great example... One guy's opinion isn't "evidence" either. I could give you individual health care horror stories from single payer countries, but that would be emotional manipulation.

DanBC 8y ago
Everyone knows that 5 year cancer survival rates in the US are high because the US over-tests so much. This is evidence that harm is being caused. It's not evidence of a good health care system. Why are male incontinence products so prevalent in the states? It's because men are pushed to get PSA and similar screening for prostate cancer. This means the US detects a lot of slow growing cancer that's unlikely to kill someone (which improves the 5 year survival stats), but it also means that the US then provides treatment to those men. That treatment has side effects.
- Sir_Vival 8y ago
  It doesn't seem like "over testing" or "harm" if the end result is less people dying. The fact of the matter is that I was able to get an MRI the same day I went to the doctor with an issue twice in the US. One of those times was for severe recurrent headaches. The doctor didn't think it was a tumor (and it wasn't), but he did it to be sure. If I were in Canada chances are I would have waited months for that appointment. In the worst case that would mean the tumor had time to grow. In the best case that's months of unnecessary worry, which isn't healthy in itself.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    If you were in Canada you could get that MRI privately and still probably save quite a bit of money.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    > if the end result is less people dying That isn't the end result.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
abalone 8y ago
> > Other countries have better health outcomes, so that pretty much kills your “worse service” claim. > No it doesn't. Not every US citizen actually receives the service, because they want to (or have to) save money So by “better” service you mean no service for the poor. That’s better? This is how you spin a system with worse health outcomes into something “better” — again, without citing a shred of evidence.

DanBC 8y ago

Everyone knows that 5 year cancer survival rates in the US are high because the US over-tests so much. This is evidence that harm is being caused. It's not evidence of a good health care system. Why are male incontinence products so prevalent in the states? It's because men are pushed to get PSA and similar screening for prostate cancer. This means the US detects a lot of slow growing cancer that's unlikely to kill someone (which improves the 5 year survival stats), but it also means that the US then provides treatment to those men. That treatment has side effects.

Sir_Vival 8y ago
It doesn't seem like "over testing" or "harm" if the end result is less people dying. The fact of the matter is that I was able to get an MRI the same day I went to the doctor with an issue twice in the US. One of those times was for severe recurrent headaches. The doctor didn't think it was a tumor (and it wasn't), but he did it to be sure. If I were in Canada chances are I would have waited months for that appointment. In the worst case that would mean the tumor had time to grow. In the best case that's months of unnecessary worry, which isn't healthy in itself.
- icebraining 8y ago
  If you were in Canada you could get that MRI privately and still probably save quite a bit of money.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > if the end result is less people dying That isn't the end result.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

abalone 8y ago

> > Other countries have better health outcomes, so that pretty much kills your “worse service” claim. > No it doesn't. Not every US citizen actually receives the service, because they want to (or have to) save money So by “better” service you mean no service for the poor. That’s better? This is how you spin a system with worse health outcomes into something “better” — again, without citing a shred of evidence.