8 ms·

>in all likelihood his his longevity is mostly due to him having money. I think you mean "Socialized Medicine" "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for th

by parfe 15y ago

>in all likelihood his his longevity is mostly due to him having money. I think you mean "Socialized Medicine" "I wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS," [Hawking] said. "I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived...." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-enters-us_n_257343.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/12/stephen-hawking-ent...

__alexs 15y ago
Indeed. I'm sure the multiple dedicated full time assistants and general adoration of everyone around him helps keep him positive too though. It's probably easy to have a pretty terrible quality of life with ALS even if you do have money for medical treatment.
gnaritas 15y ago
Yea, you don't need money to be healthy in a civilized country. Someday, America might catch on, but I'm not holding my breath.
- paulhauggis 15y ago
  "Yea, you don't need money to be healthy in a civilized country." You just need enough other people's money. "Someday, America might catch on, but I'm not holding my breath." Why is it that anyone with any kind of money that needs urgent care comes to the US? I will give you a hint: it's not because of nationalized health care. Our system isn't perfect and is expensive, but in my opinion, it's the best in the world (in terms of quality doctors, surgery, and hospitals).
  - aamar 15y ago
    Why is it that anyone with any kind of money that needs urgent care comes to the US? I will give you a hint: it's not because of nationalized health care. Many of the inbound medical tourists to the U.S. are coming from countries that don't have nationalized health care or are coming because their nationalized health care system is paying most of the cost of their care and trip. Relatively few are buying their way into better care vs. a nationalized health system. Also, the number of inbound U.S. medical tourists is around 70,000[1], while the number of outbound U.S. medical tourists is around 650,000[2] (surgery dominates). There are many factors involved here, but as a basic matter, it would be simpler to say that people leave the U.S. for medical care much more than they visit for it. [1] 2008 number: http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/health-hospitals-care-forbeslife-cx_avd_outsourcing08_0529healthoutsourcing.html http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/health-hospitals-care-forbe... [2] 2009 number: http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/article1079824.ece http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/article1079824.ece
    - lancewiggs 15y ago
      Anecdotally the USA has, amongst all the rest of it, some of the world's elite health institutions. The global wealthy can choose from a select few clinics doing leading edge research-oriented treatment to use in selected fields (e.g. some cancers).
    - andyking 15y ago
      It's quite regular that local media in Britain will report on a fundraising drive to send someone (often with a rare condition, sometimes not) to America for treatment because the NHS won't pay - here's an example just from today, where a family's trying to raise ~$100,000: http://www.moorlandsradio.co.uk/2012/01/help-katie/ http://www.moorlandsradio.co.uk/2012/01/help-katie/ It's not because our health service is poor - in fact, it's excellent for general healthcare and I literally trust it with my life. The country (as in you, me, everyone who pays taxes) sadly just can't afford to treat very expensive edge cases, or send people for highly expensive experimental procedures, without jeopardising the sustainability of the service for others. Conversely in America, if you have the money, you get the treatment.
      - parfe 15y ago
        In America, insurance companies call that an "experimental procedure" and they wouldn't cover it either. Meanwhile for every case you can find for someone traveling to America, there can be an identical case found for someone traveling to Europe. http://www.kulr8.com/news/local/Cerebral-Palsy-Fundraiser-102670054.html http://www.kulr8.com/news/local/Cerebral-Palsy-Fundraiser-10...
        michaelcampbell 15y ago
        > Meanwhile for every case you can find for someone traveling to America, there can be an identical case found for someone traveling to Europe. You've found 1, which hardly equates to "every". Do you have any actual data? I'd be curious to see what the real difference is between "them" coming "here" vs. "us" going "there".
  - rmc 15y ago
    Why is it that anyone with any kind of money that needs urgent care comes to the US? Do they? Here in Ireland people going for specialized treatment would go to private hospitals in the UK.
    - parfe 15y ago
      Nope! Whenever you see an American ignorantly claiming the US as #1 in something you can safely chalk it up to American Exceptionalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism It's a neat little ideal that helps people assert we, as Americans, are intrinsically better than everyone else, by fiat. It avoids all the hassle of constantly working to live up to our own ideals, or expending any effort to improve ourselves as a nation. Also people holding that mindset generally learn much further right/conservative than the average American. And keep in mind America has two parties, Moderate Right and Extreme Right. We have no left wing to speak of, when compared to European politics.
      - _dps 15y ago
        Having spent many of my childhood years in Europe (and being of European origin), I agree that US exceptionalism is a problematic phenomenon, but I also think that lately it has become a thought-collapsing meme amongst intellectuals. One cannot deny that America is unique in its global position, and that said uniqueness is not just of the special-snowflake variety that every nation has. It has an extremely high concentration of wealth, geopolitical clout, and intellectual/creative output (which, of course, leads to unfortunate and probably largely unintended cultural imperialism). In this particular instance, it's not an unreasonable claim that the US has a large advantage at the highest end of medicine (research of new procedures, pharmaceuticals, and so on). Obviously, this alone wouldn't justify calling it #1 (whatever that means in a multifaceted problem like healthcare, especially given that other nations feed off US-based research in their socialized systems without bearing the development risks). But I think the "Disregard speaker due to US Exceptionalism" response is thought-dulling, rather than thought-provoking.
        15y ago
  - wisty 15y ago
    North Koreans think their country is the best too. The US health system sucks. The US spends more public money on health, let alone private money, and still has a crappy system. The reality is, medicine is something that any idiot can manage. Get a doctor and some nurses, put them in a clean building, and give them a few million to buy machines and stocks. Even the government can do it, and the government does it at a lower price, because they aren't looking to rip off desperate people. There's huge barriers to entry (regulatory issues, deals with insurers, no way to boot strap unless you are a doctor), but it's not all rocket science. No-one competes on value (i.e. quality of life over price) - not many people shop to find the cheapest hospital (it's too hard and confusing), they just go on vague stuff like how nice the lobby looks. You won't lose much if the government replaces pretty private lobbys with Stalinist admissions rooms, and tells doctors to look after the patients rather than con them into expensive, unnecessary, and sometimes risky procedures. Unless you believe that competition lowers price to the marginal cost of supply (which is pure fantasy cooked up by economists, and is completely at odds with how business actually run), or you think that the management of hospitals needs innovative techniques, then there's no reason not to have public health.
    - paulhauggis 15y ago
      "Get a doctor and some nurses, put them in a clean building, and give them a few million to buy machines and stocks. Even the government can do it, and the government does it at a lower price, because they aren't looking to rip off desperate people." They may not be looking to "rip off desperate people", but they sure don't know how to efficiently spend money (example: every single government-run system in the history of humanity). If the government ran anything like an efficient business, I might agree to more government-run services. The problem is that over time, almost all end up hemorrhaging money and I can't trust my life to a system like this. "You won't lose much if the government replaces pretty private lobbys with Stalinist admissions rooms, and tells doctors to look after the patients rather than con them into expensive, unnecessary, and sometimes risky procedures." Except freedom of choice. Once you have a government system in place, nearly all private care will be put out of business because the government is allowed to play by their own rules. Look at the UK: private care is so expensive, unless you are in the top 1%, you can't afford it. Nobody likes monopolies, yet those same people are fine with the government running one. The same exact rules apply. A monopoly on health care means the government doesn't have to compete, innovate, or have any incentive to give us better care. "or you think that the management of hospitals needs innovative techniques, then there's no reason not to have public health." Nobody that is pro-universal health will ever discuss the problems with it. I mean nobody. I can't believe a system is perfect. No system is. If we can't have intelligent discussions about the pros and cons of a system, I won't ever support it.
  - pyre 15y ago
    > Our system "Our system" is a hodgepodge of different systems. We've got regular system that most people are on (private hospitals, private insurance). We've got MediCare (private hospitals, public insurance). And we've got the veterans system (public hospitals, public insurance). If a medical care system that even touches public money is so bad, then why do we have systems like that? Why is 'socialism' some sort of political hot-potato when we have so many current social programs that no one wants to give up that qualify as 'socialism?'
    - roc 15y ago
      Because rhetoric has nothing to do with truth. We soaked generations of Americans in the idea that 'socialism' = 'communism' = 'Russia' and 'China' = 'The Bad Guys'. That creates emotional responses on part of a large segment of the population whenever you assert something is "socialist" and good luck trying to reason with someone in the middle of an emotional response. So convincing the voting public that something is "socialism" skews public support, and thereby the inevitable compromise, more toward your private benefactors. The disconnect between rhetoric and objective reality is how we've managed to create a society where people at Tea Party rallies can emphatically demand that the very government that can do no right and needs to be largely dismantled in their eyes, needs to leave their social security, medicare and military alone.
  - blntechie 15y ago
    America has one of the best health care facilities and best doctors in the world, NOT the system. This is not a correct analogy but for sake of popular opinion, American health care is like Apple products providing good return for the money you spent but the money spent is too damn high compared to others. Fortunately, there are lot of better models elsewhere to follow and America is not a shining beacon of health care system in the world.
    - paulhauggis 15y ago
      "America has one of the best health care facilities and best doctors in the world, NOT the system." and why is that? because the doctors go where the money is. Doctors in all NHS systems have limited salaries. "Fortunately, there are lot of better models elsewhere to follow and America is not a shining beacon of health care system in the world." Compared to who? There is so much FUD (especially in the HN community) about NHS, I can't really believe anything until I see some cold, hard, stats.
      - arethuza 15y ago
        "Doctors in all NHS systems have limited salaries." Senior doctors in the UK NHS often work "on the side" in private hospitals to boost their income to extremely comfortable levels - their basic salaries aren't too bad when you consider that the cost of medical training in the UK is nothing like as expensive as the US.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    "You just need enough other people's money." The point of a tax is that it is not your money. It is societies money. "The public's" so to speak.
  - chunkyslink 15y ago
    Its not much good to those people who cant afford it. In fact it might as well not be there at all. I think that is the point. Steven has said he owes his life to a FREE healthcare system provided by the government and you want to dismiss this claim with a rant about how great the US system is. Just typical. Why can't you just accept that 'socialised care' has worked for someone and has done some good. He would have got the same treatment if he had been rich or poor. Like millions of other people in the UK. Its not about who's money pays for it, its about respecting the value of all human life equally regardless of wealth. In this respect the American system does not even come close to competing.
  - veidr 15y ago
    Our system isn't perfect and is expensive, but in my opinion, it's the best in the world (in terms of quality doctors, surgery, and hospitals). That's probably true for the best doctors, surgery, and hospitals in the USA. But it isn't true on average. The average hospital in the US isn't as good (well-equipped, well-staffed) as the average hospital in, say, Japan. It also isn't true for most people -- even those with health insurance -- because most people simply cannot pay out of pocket for this best-of-breed care. The health care that most people in the USA actually get is well below the quality of many other countries. So US health care is only the 'best in the world' in the same sense that a $1.7 million dollar Bugatti Veyron might be considered the 'best sports car in the world'. Great, if you're rich as fuck. Otherwise not too relevant.
    - learc83 15y ago
      >But it isn't true on average. From the statistics I've seen that's not true. The lowest 20% may have worse care than the lowest 20% in other developed countries, but the average American has access to the best health care in the world. Just look at American cancer survival rates--they are the highest in the world. >The average hospital in the US isn't as good (well-equipped, well-staffed) Now that's just plain wrong, the vast majority of hospitals in the US are incredibly well equipped.
      - veidr 15y ago
        Well, I have to ask: what the hell statistics have you seen? A baby born in the USA is almost three times more likely to die at or immediately following birth than in Japan. [1] Your cancer stat is true for prostate and breast cancer, but Japan has the best rates for some other types of cancers [2], and importantly Japanese people actually develop much less cancer[2.1], one reason for which is much better preventative medical care (for average people); the average Japanese person sees a doctor three times more often than the average Americans, and have three times more MRI scans[3]. Speaking of MRI machines, Japan has twice as many of them per capita than does the USA[4], and routinely uses them for preventive care. I've lived in both, and my government health insurance in Japan routinely covers MRI scans for preventive and diagnostic purpose, while my employer-suplied HMO in the states refused all MRI scans until actual debilitation had already occured. A colleague just had a baby here, and not only is the care better than the USA (more visits, less waiting, better outcomes for typical people), health care for the baby is free until the baby is 15. Another reason that baby will see a health care professional more often. I used to believe that American health care was the best, too. We hear it all the time growing up. And we spend so much. But then I moved abroad, and it turned out everything I thought I knew was wrong. It's just like saying "American education is the best in the world!" Sure it is... at M.I.T. and Stanford, maybe. Across the vast majority of the population in public schools? Not so much. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Infant_mortality_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Infant_mortali... [2]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm [2.1]: http://www.wcrf-uk.org/research/cancer_statistics/world_cancer_statistics_overall.php http://www.wcrf-uk.org/research/cancer_statistics/world_canc... [3]: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/09/facts-about-japanese-health-care.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/09/fac... [4]: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89626309 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8962630... EDITS: fixed my typo that gave USA a worse infant mortality rate than Somalia, and rephrased a couple things more clearly. Added education analogy.
  - pmarin 15y ago
    In my opinion the best health system in the world is the one who safe more lives, no the one who safe the lives who can pay for.
shingen 15y ago
Is that why the NHS is collapsing and has been forced to begin privatizing itself?

by parfe 15y ago

__alexs 15y ago

Indeed. I'm sure the multiple dedicated full time assistants and general adoration of everyone around him helps keep him positive too though. It's probably easy to have a pretty terrible quality of life with ALS even if you do have money for medical treatment.

gnaritas 15y ago

Yea, you don't need money to be healthy in a civilized country. Someday, America might catch on, but I'm not holding my breath.

paulhauggis 15y ago
"Yea, you don't need money to be healthy in a civilized country." You just need enough other people's money. "Someday, America might catch on, but I'm not holding my breath." Why is it that anyone with any kind of money that needs urgent care comes to the US? I will give you a hint: it's not because of nationalized health care. Our system isn't perfect and is expensive, but in my opinion, it's the best in the world (in terms of quality doctors, surgery, and hospitals).
- aamar 15y ago
  Why is it that anyone with any kind of money that needs urgent care comes to the US? I will give you a hint: it's not because of nationalized health care. Many of the inbound medical tourists to the U.S. are coming from countries that don't have nationalized health care or are coming because their nationalized health care system is paying most of the cost of their care and trip. Relatively few are buying their way into better care vs. a nationalized health system. Also, the number of inbound U.S. medical tourists is around 70,000[1], while the number of outbound U.S. medical tourists is around 650,000[2] (surgery dominates). There are many factors involved here, but as a basic matter, it would be simpler to say that people leave the U.S. for medical care much more than they visit for it. [1] 2008 number: http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/health-hospitals-care-forbeslife-cx_avd_outsourcing08_0529healthoutsourcing.html http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/25/health-hospitals-care-forbe... [2] 2009 number: http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/article1079824.ece http://www.tampabay.com/news/health/article1079824.ece
  - lancewiggs 15y ago
    Anecdotally the USA has, amongst all the rest of it, some of the world's elite health institutions. The global wealthy can choose from a select few clinics doing leading edge research-oriented treatment to use in selected fields (e.g. some cancers).
  - andyking 15y ago
    It's quite regular that local media in Britain will report on a fundraising drive to send someone (often with a rare condition, sometimes not) to America for treatment because the NHS won't pay - here's an example just from today, where a family's trying to raise ~$100,000: http://www.moorlandsradio.co.uk/2012/01/help-katie/ http://www.moorlandsradio.co.uk/2012/01/help-katie/ It's not because our health service is poor - in fact, it's excellent for general healthcare and I literally trust it with my life. The country (as in you, me, everyone who pays taxes) sadly just can't afford to treat very expensive edge cases, or send people for highly expensive experimental procedures, without jeopardising the sustainability of the service for others. Conversely in America, if you have the money, you get the treatment.
    - parfe 15y ago
      In America, insurance companies call that an "experimental procedure" and they wouldn't cover it either. Meanwhile for every case you can find for someone traveling to America, there can be an identical case found for someone traveling to Europe. http://www.kulr8.com/news/local/Cerebral-Palsy-Fundraiser-102670054.html http://www.kulr8.com/news/local/Cerebral-Palsy-Fundraiser-10...
      - michaelcampbell 15y ago
        > Meanwhile for every case you can find for someone traveling to America, there can be an identical case found for someone traveling to Europe. You've found 1, which hardly equates to "every". Do you have any actual data? I'd be curious to see what the real difference is between "them" coming "here" vs. "us" going "there".
- rmc 15y ago
  Why is it that anyone with any kind of money that needs urgent care comes to the US? Do they? Here in Ireland people going for specialized treatment would go to private hospitals in the UK.
  - parfe 15y ago
    Nope! Whenever you see an American ignorantly claiming the US as #1 in something you can safely chalk it up to American Exceptionalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism It's a neat little ideal that helps people assert we, as Americans, are intrinsically better than everyone else, by fiat. It avoids all the hassle of constantly working to live up to our own ideals, or expending any effort to improve ourselves as a nation. Also people holding that mindset generally learn much further right/conservative than the average American. And keep in mind America has two parties, Moderate Right and Extreme Right. We have no left wing to speak of, when compared to European politics.
    - _dps 15y ago
      Having spent many of my childhood years in Europe (and being of European origin), I agree that US exceptionalism is a problematic phenomenon, but I also think that lately it has become a thought-collapsing meme amongst intellectuals. One cannot deny that America is unique in its global position, and that said uniqueness is not just of the special-snowflake variety that every nation has. It has an extremely high concentration of wealth, geopolitical clout, and intellectual/creative output (which, of course, leads to unfortunate and probably largely unintended cultural imperialism). In this particular instance, it's not an unreasonable claim that the US has a large advantage at the highest end of medicine (research of new procedures, pharmaceuticals, and so on). Obviously, this alone wouldn't justify calling it #1 (whatever that means in a multifaceted problem like healthcare, especially given that other nations feed off US-based research in their socialized systems without bearing the development risks). But I think the "Disregard speaker due to US Exceptionalism" response is thought-dulling, rather than thought-provoking.
      - 15y ago
- wisty 15y ago
  North Koreans think their country is the best too. The US health system sucks. The US spends more public money on health, let alone private money, and still has a crappy system. The reality is, medicine is something that any idiot can manage. Get a doctor and some nurses, put them in a clean building, and give them a few million to buy machines and stocks. Even the government can do it, and the government does it at a lower price, because they aren't looking to rip off desperate people. There's huge barriers to entry (regulatory issues, deals with insurers, no way to boot strap unless you are a doctor), but it's not all rocket science. No-one competes on value (i.e. quality of life over price) - not many people shop to find the cheapest hospital (it's too hard and confusing), they just go on vague stuff like how nice the lobby looks. You won't lose much if the government replaces pretty private lobbys with Stalinist admissions rooms, and tells doctors to look after the patients rather than con them into expensive, unnecessary, and sometimes risky procedures. Unless you believe that competition lowers price to the marginal cost of supply (which is pure fantasy cooked up by economists, and is completely at odds with how business actually run), or you think that the management of hospitals needs innovative techniques, then there's no reason not to have public health.
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    "Get a doctor and some nurses, put them in a clean building, and give them a few million to buy machines and stocks. Even the government can do it, and the government does it at a lower price, because they aren't looking to rip off desperate people." They may not be looking to "rip off desperate people", but they sure don't know how to efficiently spend money (example: every single government-run system in the history of humanity). If the government ran anything like an efficient business, I might agree to more government-run services. The problem is that over time, almost all end up hemorrhaging money and I can't trust my life to a system like this. "You won't lose much if the government replaces pretty private lobbys with Stalinist admissions rooms, and tells doctors to look after the patients rather than con them into expensive, unnecessary, and sometimes risky procedures." Except freedom of choice. Once you have a government system in place, nearly all private care will be put out of business because the government is allowed to play by their own rules. Look at the UK: private care is so expensive, unless you are in the top 1%, you can't afford it. Nobody likes monopolies, yet those same people are fine with the government running one. The same exact rules apply. A monopoly on health care means the government doesn't have to compete, innovate, or have any incentive to give us better care. "or you think that the management of hospitals needs innovative techniques, then there's no reason not to have public health." Nobody that is pro-universal health will ever discuss the problems with it. I mean nobody. I can't believe a system is perfect. No system is. If we can't have intelligent discussions about the pros and cons of a system, I won't ever support it.
- pyre 15y ago
  > Our system "Our system" is a hodgepodge of different systems. We've got regular system that most people are on (private hospitals, private insurance). We've got MediCare (private hospitals, public insurance). And we've got the veterans system (public hospitals, public insurance). If a medical care system that even touches public money is so bad, then why do we have systems like that? Why is 'socialism' some sort of political hot-potato when we have so many current social programs that no one wants to give up that qualify as 'socialism?'
  - roc 15y ago
    Because rhetoric has nothing to do with truth. We soaked generations of Americans in the idea that 'socialism' = 'communism' = 'Russia' and 'China' = 'The Bad Guys'. That creates emotional responses on part of a large segment of the population whenever you assert something is "socialist" and good luck trying to reason with someone in the middle of an emotional response. So convincing the voting public that something is "socialism" skews public support, and thereby the inevitable compromise, more toward your private benefactors. The disconnect between rhetoric and objective reality is how we've managed to create a society where people at Tea Party rallies can emphatically demand that the very government that can do no right and needs to be largely dismantled in their eyes, needs to leave their social security, medicare and military alone.
- blntechie 15y ago
  America has one of the best health care facilities and best doctors in the world, NOT the system. This is not a correct analogy but for sake of popular opinion, American health care is like Apple products providing good return for the money you spent but the money spent is too damn high compared to others. Fortunately, there are lot of better models elsewhere to follow and America is not a shining beacon of health care system in the world.
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    "America has one of the best health care facilities and best doctors in the world, NOT the system." and why is that? because the doctors go where the money is. Doctors in all NHS systems have limited salaries. "Fortunately, there are lot of better models elsewhere to follow and America is not a shining beacon of health care system in the world." Compared to who? There is so much FUD (especially in the HN community) about NHS, I can't really believe anything until I see some cold, hard, stats.
    - arethuza 15y ago
      "Doctors in all NHS systems have limited salaries." Senior doctors in the UK NHS often work "on the side" in private hospitals to boost their income to extremely comfortable levels - their basic salaries aren't too bad when you consider that the cost of medical training in the UK is nothing like as expensive as the US.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  "You just need enough other people's money." The point of a tax is that it is not your money. It is societies money. "The public's" so to speak.
- chunkyslink 15y ago
  Its not much good to those people who cant afford it. In fact it might as well not be there at all. I think that is the point. Steven has said he owes his life to a FREE healthcare system provided by the government and you want to dismiss this claim with a rant about how great the US system is. Just typical. Why can't you just accept that 'socialised care' has worked for someone and has done some good. He would have got the same treatment if he had been rich or poor. Like millions of other people in the UK. Its not about who's money pays for it, its about respecting the value of all human life equally regardless of wealth. In this respect the American system does not even come close to competing.
- veidr 15y ago
  Our system isn't perfect and is expensive, but in my opinion, it's the best in the world (in terms of quality doctors, surgery, and hospitals). That's probably true for the best doctors, surgery, and hospitals in the USA. But it isn't true on average. The average hospital in the US isn't as good (well-equipped, well-staffed) as the average hospital in, say, Japan. It also isn't true for most people -- even those with health insurance -- because most people simply cannot pay out of pocket for this best-of-breed care. The health care that most people in the USA actually get is well below the quality of many other countries. So US health care is only the 'best in the world' in the same sense that a $1.7 million dollar Bugatti Veyron might be considered the 'best sports car in the world'. Great, if you're rich as fuck. Otherwise not too relevant.
  - learc83 15y ago
    >But it isn't true on average. From the statistics I've seen that's not true. The lowest 20% may have worse care than the lowest 20% in other developed countries, but the average American has access to the best health care in the world. Just look at American cancer survival rates--they are the highest in the world. >The average hospital in the US isn't as good (well-equipped, well-staffed) Now that's just plain wrong, the vast majority of hospitals in the US are incredibly well equipped.
    - veidr 15y ago
      Well, I have to ask: what the hell statistics have you seen? A baby born in the USA is almost three times more likely to die at or immediately following birth than in Japan. [1] Your cancer stat is true for prostate and breast cancer, but Japan has the best rates for some other types of cancers [2], and importantly Japanese people actually develop much less cancer[2.1], one reason for which is much better preventative medical care (for average people); the average Japanese person sees a doctor three times more often than the average Americans, and have three times more MRI scans[3]. Speaking of MRI machines, Japan has twice as many of them per capita than does the USA[4], and routinely uses them for preventive care. I've lived in both, and my government health insurance in Japan routinely covers MRI scans for preventive and diagnostic purpose, while my employer-suplied HMO in the states refused all MRI scans until actual debilitation had already occured. A colleague just had a baby here, and not only is the care better than the USA (more visits, less waiting, better outcomes for typical people), health care for the baby is free until the baby is 15. Another reason that baby will see a health care professional more often. I used to believe that American health care was the best, too. We hear it all the time growing up. And we spend so much. But then I moved abroad, and it turned out everything I thought I knew was wrong. It's just like saying "American education is the best in the world!" Sure it is... at M.I.T. and Stanford, maybe. Across the vast majority of the population in public schools? Not so much. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Infant_mortality_rate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality#Infant_mortali... [2]: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7510121.stm [2.1]: http://www.wcrf-uk.org/research/cancer_statistics/world_cancer_statistics_overall.php http://www.wcrf-uk.org/research/cancer_statistics/world_canc... [3]: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/09/facts-about-japanese-health-care.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/09/fac... [4]: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89626309 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8962630... EDITS: fixed my typo that gave USA a worse infant mortality rate than Somalia, and rephrased a couple things more clearly. Added education analogy.
- pmarin 15y ago
  In my opinion the best health system in the world is the one who safe more lives, no the one who safe the lives who can pay for.

shingen 15y ago

Is that why the NHS is collapsing and has been forced to begin privatizing itself?