Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. health is lousy compared with peer nations, report says

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 110 posts

Re: U.S. health is lousy compared with peer nations, report says

#101

Post by tokenadult »

w1ntermute wrote: post #86
tokenadult wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should learn not to rely on that link for your understanding of the world. It is crap.

Why do you think my worldview would be based on a single blog post? And can you elaborate on why you think the post is wrong?

(First reply, for courtesy.) I'll give your fair question the long answer it deserves probably tomorrow (United States time zones) after traveling to a meeting in another town this evening). I'll probably reply in this same thread, under your question, so it's easy for you to find the reply.

Re: U.S. health is lousy compared with peer nations, report says

#102

Post by grecy »

tptacek wrote: post #100
grecy wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, but I can't find statistics for that per country per capita. I would be very surprised if countries like New Zealand and Australia do not have more deployed troops per capita than America does.

Not counting the Navy, the US has at least double the per-capita rate of deployed troops. But that's misleading too, because most of New Zealand's deployments aren't hostile; a US soldier is far more likely to see combat than an NZ soldier.

Can you back that up with links to stats please.

Re: U.S. health is lousy compared with peer nations, report says

#103

Post by refurb »

slurry wrote: post #61
refurb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dig a bit deeper and you'll see that those statistics don't tell you the whole story. In the US, premature births occur at a much higher rate than other country and account for a large portion of the higher infant mortality rate. Those stats also don't tell you that if you have a premature baby, it's most likely to survive if treated in the US.

> In the US, premature births occur at a much higher rate than other country Pretty much what you'd expect for a system that doesn't emphasize accessible prenatal care.

Ummm.... no.

Prenatal care has a minimal impact on premature births.

Re: U.S. health is lousy compared with peer nations, report says

#104

Post by slurry »

refurb wrote: post #103
slurry wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the US, premature births occur at a much higher rate than other country Pretty much what you'd expect for a system that doesn't emphasize accessible prenatal care.

Ummm.... no. Prenatal care has a minimal impact on premature births.

True, some other things have a greater impact on premature births than prenatal care, and the US system is shitty at those things as well.

I picked access to prenatal care because it's one of the easiest ones to improve, it has a positive impact on a variety of metrics, and it should be desirable in itself to anyone who isn't a sociopath.

Re: U.S. health is lousy compared with peer nations, report says

#105

Post by dguaraglia »

Irregardless wrote: post #21

And yet people from around the world fly here every day to have critical surgeries performed by the world's top doctors in state of the art facilities. News Flash: The U.S. isn't a welfare state. To benefit from everything this country has to offer, you need to pay for it. Yes, it would be better if that didn't apply to healthcare, but there needs to be some method of exclusion when demand is high and supply is low.…

"Would you rather wait 2 months just to see a specialist and another 2 months for treatment like patients in nationalized healthcare systems frequently do?"

This is so misinformed it's borderline laughable (if it wasn't thrown out there by someone who is a member of the HN community and, I'd assume, an intelligent peer.)

I have been treated in Argentina for urgent and non-urgent issues and never, ever, had to wait 2 months for anything. When I was referred to a specialist (best of her branch of medicine in a city of almost a million inhabitants) I got an appointment the following week and started treatment within a month. Whenever I needed something, like an X-ray or bloodwork, I could either get it free of charge at the local hospitals or just pay for it (incredibly, a CT Scan with the same machines they use in the US costs 1/6 the price in Argentina. How's that for free market economy?) and get a result immediately.

So, all in all, this is complete bunk. People who have never experienced any other system are by definition the worst to make a comparison with the US system. I've used the Brazilian, the Argentinian, the British and the US system and by far my worst experience has always been in the US, even while paying through my nose to get the same care I'd get for free in either of the 'developing' nations. Heck, I've used the _private_ system in the UK and even if I paid the extra bit to be seen by a doctor (20' wait at the practice; Oh! The horrors of endless lines and dead panels!) I only had to pay ~£2.50 to get all the medicine he prescribed (that's the upper bound, after that everything else is free.)

So yeah, definitely the US is not a welfare state. If anything, it's the contrary: a profiteering system where healthcare is just secondary to profit.

Re: U.S. health is lousy compared with peer nations, report says

#106

Post by dtkuhn »

tdfx wrote: post #91
dtkuhn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) Help Medicare track cost-effectiveness of tests/procedures involving really expensive technology (development of which will only get more & more expensive); (2) Teach Medicare patients how to become actual consumers of health care (how to shop for price/compare treatment options) -- i.e. help transfer some of the burden of reducing cost from payers to patients w/out causing mass hysteria

I don't think #2 will work without reforming the system to incentivize that kind of behavior. My grandmother goes to the podiatrist to have him cut her toenails (diabetes). There's barely any risk of her doing it herself, but he charges $200 every week for this treatment to Medicare. With her supplemental insurance, she pays nothing for these visits out of pocket. Why wouldn't she go?

Chicken/egg. I'm not sure reform is practical until consumers have the help necessary to shop / compare. Otherwise, you basically have a bunch of old, angry voters.

Re: U.S. health is lousy compared with peer nations, report says

#107

Post by tokenadult »

w1ntermute wrote: post #86
tokenadult wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should learn not to rely on that link for your understanding of the world. It is crap.

Why do you think my worldview would be based on a single blog post? And can you elaborate on why you think the post is wrong?

I'll be writing off-forum today (in between work tasks) to provide an answer to your kind question,

And can you elaborate on why you think the post is wrong?

Meanwhile, in response to your

Why do you think my worldview would be based on a single blog post?

I am wondering why you have submitted that link so often in previous Hacker News discussions of international comparisons among countries. (This most recent time is far from the first time you have submitted the link.) That link is the only external source you have submitted here. What do you think makes that a better post to consider for the issues under discussion in this immediate thread than some of the links shared on health issues in other subthreads here? What does that link actually have to do with health at all?

Re: U.S. health is lousy compared with peer nations, report says

#108

Post by rmc »

grecy wrote: post #102
tptacek wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not counting the Navy, the US has at least double the per-capita rate of deployed troops. But that's misleading too, because most of New Zealand's deployments aren't hostile; a US soldier is far more likely to see combat than an NZ soldier.

Can you back that up with links to stats please.

Well to start with New Zealand, can you name a country it has invaded?

Re: U.S. health is lousy compared with peer nations, report says

#109

Post by 127001brewer »

tdfx wrote: post #91
dtkuhn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(1) Help Medicare track cost-effectiveness of tests/procedures involving really expensive technology (development of which will only get more & more expensive); (2) Teach Medicare patients how to become actual consumers of health care (how to shop for price/compare treatment options) -- i.e. help transfer some of the burden of reducing cost from payers to patients w/out causing mass hysteria

I don't think #2 will work without reforming the system to incentivize that kind of behavior. My grandmother goes to the podiatrist to have him cut her toenails (diabetes). There's barely any risk of her doing it herself, but he charges $200 every week for this treatment to Medicare. With her supplemental insurance, she pays nothing for these visits out of pocket. Why wouldn't she go?

Interestingly, the trimming of toe nails can be abused with "up-coding" as "minor surgery". When I worked with a group investigating Medicare/Medicaid fraud, this procedure was a commonly abused (with up-coding).

The point being is that fraud is a significant problem, but it's not easily solvable.

Post reply on HN