3 ms·

I've come across a number of HN commenters claiming US healthcare is better than the EU or UK. I'd argue it's pretty broken compared to both. The UK's NHS is fa

by tomxor 4y ago

I've come across a number of HN commenters claiming US healthcare is better than the EU or UK. I'd argue it's pretty broken compared to both. The UK's NHS is far from perfect yet serves the majority of people well without bankrupting them. Countries of the EU will have varying quality of healthcare, yet I'd still trust them over the US due to my fear of the US's highly profit driven system (which can cost you more than money). I suspect those claiming US healthcare is superior are able to pay quarter of a million without blinking - however they still run the risk of unnecessary surgery and aggressive prescription of addictive substances.

BobbyJo 4y ago
I think we can separate the administration of the care from the are itself. I believe the US has among the best care. I also believe our administration of said care is among the worst, if not the worst.
- tomxor 4y ago
  True, I wouldn't be surprised if the US was amongst the lead in quality of medical procedures - when that procedure is necessary... but beyond administration, there have been numerous instances of doctors being exposed for electing patients for unnecessary procedures driven by profits, and other procedures being recommended when scientific evidence suggest the procedure has no clear benefit - no matter the quality of surgery, it always comes at significant risk and cost to your body, it's not a magic wand; it's a traumatic intervention that requires your body to go through a lot of recovery with possible lasting effects. This can be true to a lesser extent for less severe medical interventions too. So my point is, what use is excellent "care" if not only it's life endingly expensive, but it's also prescribed immorally to the point of actually causing harm!
  - robocat 4y ago
    One measurement for medical intervention is caesarean births versus natural births by mother’s age, which hugely jumped in the states in the 2000’s: https://www.statista.com/statistics/206438/us-cesarean-delivery-rates-by-age-of-mother/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/206438/us-cesarean-deliv... (although rates are highly influenced by consumer demand?). Chance of caesarean jumped in percent from ≈⅔age to ≈age (e.g. ≈20% for 20 year old). High variation between states, although some of that might be state demographics of mothers: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/cesarean_births/cesareans.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/cesarean_births/ce... And a comparison against caesarean rates in OECD, which can be higher rate of caesarean per birth: https://www.statista.com/statistics/283123/cesarean-sections-in-oecd-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/283123/cesarean-sections...
jghn 4y ago
The people who make this claim will cite easier access to desired procedures, and higher quality treatment. They will then make the claim that care is rationed in other countries, and point at some anecdote about someone who had to wait a year for an MRI or wasn't allowed to get the optimal treatment. These arguments are at best disingenuous
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by tomxor 4y ago

BobbyJo 4y ago

I think we can separate the administration of the care from the are itself. I believe the US has among the best care. I also believe our administration of said care is among the worst, if not the worst.

tomxor 4y ago
True, I wouldn't be surprised if the US was amongst the lead in quality of medical procedures - when that procedure is necessary... but beyond administration, there have been numerous instances of doctors being exposed for electing patients for unnecessary procedures driven by profits, and other procedures being recommended when scientific evidence suggest the procedure has no clear benefit - no matter the quality of surgery, it always comes at significant risk and cost to your body, it's not a magic wand; it's a traumatic intervention that requires your body to go through a lot of recovery with possible lasting effects. This can be true to a lesser extent for less severe medical interventions too. So my point is, what use is excellent "care" if not only it's life endingly expensive, but it's also prescribed immorally to the point of actually causing harm!
- robocat 4y ago
  One measurement for medical intervention is caesarean births versus natural births by mother’s age, which hugely jumped in the states in the 2000’s: https://www.statista.com/statistics/206438/us-cesarean-delivery-rates-by-age-of-mother/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/206438/us-cesarean-deliv... (although rates are highly influenced by consumer demand?). Chance of caesarean jumped in percent from ≈⅔age to ≈age (e.g. ≈20% for 20 year old). High variation between states, although some of that might be state demographics of mothers: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/cesarean_births/cesareans.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/cesarean_births/ce... And a comparison against caesarean rates in OECD, which can be higher rate of caesarean per birth: https://www.statista.com/statistics/283123/cesarean-sections-in-oecd-countries/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/283123/cesarean-sections...

jghn 4y ago

The people who make this claim will cite easier access to desired procedures, and higher quality treatment. They will then make the claim that care is rationed in other countries, and point at some anecdote about someone who had to wait a year for an MRI or wasn't allowed to get the optimal treatment. These arguments are at best disingenuous

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]