4 ms·

The 'health outcomes' comparisons are difficult, and not necessarily a measure of the healthcare system. America has lower life expectancy because of violence,

by jariel 6y ago

The 'health outcomes' comparisons are difficult, and not necessarily a measure of the healthcare system. America has lower life expectancy because of violence, not healthcare. That America has a cohort of poor people w/out care can easily drive a lot of the other numbers out of whack as well. Finally, obesity, bad diet etc. - bad lifestyle choices are not a measure of the system either. By and large, I view the American system as delivering better specific outcomes, without regard to price, all other things being equal. Of course 'price' is a major factor as you indicate, and 'all other things' (diet, violence etc.) are not equal.

erterbest 6y ago
Isn't, from a macro perspective, 'numbers out of whack' due to a cohort of people without care, absolutely a measure of a broken system? You may view the system as providing the best care for you, but that does not mean that the system is best in every sense?
- jariel 6y ago
  If you want to view it that way, fine, but it's far more than just a 'system'. It's like saying 'transportation' is one key to a healthy 'manufacturing system'. If you are sick and you can have the choice between going to an American Hospital or a Canadian Hospital ... you go to the American one, because they are better, point blank.
  - erterbest 6y ago
    Sure. If we compare individual hospitals' ability to treat one hypothetical person with the highest quality of service and outcome, you probably are correct. But my impression is that is like saying that you are a better dad if you spend all your money on one of your kids' Harvard education and let the other one fend for himself or go into debt, when you could've given them both adequate education at a less expensive college? My position is simply that a health ecosystem where everyone gets adequate care for free or at least without going into crippling debt is preferred over a system where some get lavish care and others none. It's not like there's a thousand people dying of perfectly treatable diseases due to queuing in the Canadian health care system - but there are indeed people dying because they can't access basic care in the American system. By the way: When is transportation not a key to efficient manufacturing? Do you think that the efficient solution is for factories to make every single part of their product on site? Does it not matter whether spare parts for machinery can be ordered and delivered within 24 hours instead of 24 days? Or did you mean that what I said was obvious, i.e. the American health care system is clearly less efficient for providing solutions to the population than the Canadian, but you want to stress the point that it is possible, in some cases, to get better individual care in an American hospital?
throw0101a 6y ago
> America has lower life expectancy because of violence, not healthcare. > That America has a cohort of poor people w/out care can easily drive a lot of the other numbers out of whack as well. Other countries help probably take better care of their poor with social programs, which would include healthcare (IMHO). See also higher taxes, which allows for redistribution of wealth and paying for said programs.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> America has lower life expectancy because of violence, not healthcare. Opioid epidemic, violence, and healthcare system all play a role, both in life expectancy and quality of life. > By and large, I view the American system as delivering better specific outcomes, without regard to price, all other things being equal. What does this even mean? If it means choosing random encounters for equivalent similar conditions, and ignoring price, the outcome in the US is consistently or on-average better, I don't think that's true. If you mean “where can the best care be acquired, without regard to how many people have access to it”, sure, that may be correct.
- jariel 6y ago
  "What does this even mean?" It means they have better Doctors, better processes, better equipment, more of it. It means if you have a problem, and want to 'be fixed' - you would much prefer to be in an American hospital - the only question is 'can you afford it'). Rich Canadians go across the border to the US all the time for care.

by jariel 6y ago

erterbest 6y ago

Isn't, from a macro perspective, 'numbers out of whack' due to a cohort of people without care, absolutely a measure of a broken system? You may view the system as providing the best care for you, but that does not mean that the system is best in every sense?

jariel 6y ago
If you want to view it that way, fine, but it's far more than just a 'system'. It's like saying 'transportation' is one key to a healthy 'manufacturing system'. If you are sick and you can have the choice between going to an American Hospital or a Canadian Hospital ... you go to the American one, because they are better, point blank.
- erterbest 6y ago
  Sure. If we compare individual hospitals' ability to treat one hypothetical person with the highest quality of service and outcome, you probably are correct. But my impression is that is like saying that you are a better dad if you spend all your money on one of your kids' Harvard education and let the other one fend for himself or go into debt, when you could've given them both adequate education at a less expensive college? My position is simply that a health ecosystem where everyone gets adequate care for free or at least without going into crippling debt is preferred over a system where some get lavish care and others none. It's not like there's a thousand people dying of perfectly treatable diseases due to queuing in the Canadian health care system - but there are indeed people dying because they can't access basic care in the American system. By the way: When is transportation not a key to efficient manufacturing? Do you think that the efficient solution is for factories to make every single part of their product on site? Does it not matter whether spare parts for machinery can be ordered and delivered within 24 hours instead of 24 days? Or did you mean that what I said was obvious, i.e. the American health care system is clearly less efficient for providing solutions to the population than the Canadian, but you want to stress the point that it is possible, in some cases, to get better individual care in an American hospital?

throw0101a 6y ago

> America has lower life expectancy because of violence, not healthcare. > That America has a cohort of poor people w/out care can easily drive a lot of the other numbers out of whack as well. Other countries help probably take better care of their poor with social programs, which would include healthcare (IMHO). See also higher taxes, which allows for redistribution of wealth and paying for said programs.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> America has lower life expectancy because of violence, not healthcare. Opioid epidemic, violence, and healthcare system all play a role, both in life expectancy and quality of life. > By and large, I view the American system as delivering better specific outcomes, without regard to price, all other things being equal. What does this even mean? If it means choosing random encounters for equivalent similar conditions, and ignoring price, the outcome in the US is consistently or on-average better, I don't think that's true. If you mean “where can the best care be acquired, without regard to how many people have access to it”, sure, that may be correct.

jariel 6y ago
"What does this even mean?" It means they have better Doctors, better processes, better equipment, more of it. It means if you have a problem, and want to 'be fixed' - you would much prefer to be in an American hospital - the only question is 'can you afford it'). Rich Canadians go across the border to the US all the time for care.