U.S. health is lousy compared with peer nations, report says • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by Irregardless » Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 6:20 PM UTC

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? (I'm looking at you, Canada and Europe)

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

#22

Post by 127001brewer » Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 6:21 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #11

127001brewer wrote: post #7

I found the following blurb from the article interesting as it tries to make the information relevant the gun control debate: Gun use emerged as a factor: Americans were seven times more likely to die in a homicide and 20 times more likely to die in a shooting than their peers. In all, two-thirds of the mortality disadvantage for American men was attributable to people under the age of 50 -- and slightly over half of…

Why is health interesting to anyone? Viewed in a more hackish light: here's a problem; how can we fix it?

I find the entire "health care" topic interesting because I believe it to be "broken" (as a general term).

But what to fix?

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

#23

Post by wtn » Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 6:21 PM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #13

jchrisa wrote: post #10

No mention of corn and petroleum subsidies.

Please could you expand on that. I'm mystified.

Grain subsidies indirectly subsidize high–calorie, low–nutrition foods like bread, cookies, crackers, soda drinks (corn syrup), and other stuff that is terrible for you. Fuel policy promotes more driving, less walking.

It is an interesting question as to where to draw the line between personal responsibility and governmental responsibility. Of course most people in the US can afford to buy quality food, if they really wanted to, and some Americans are doing well. But Americans clearly aren't doing well at keeping up their health, and gov policy is making obesity worse. I saw some data point recently that suggested we may have passed an inflection point (for the better), hopefully it turns out to be true in the long run.

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

#24

Post by roc » Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 6:25 PM UTC

npsimons wrote: post #11

127001brewer wrote: post #7

I found the following blurb from the article interesting as it tries to make the information relevant the gun control debate: Gun use emerged as a factor: Americans were seven times more likely to die in a homicide and 20 times more likely to die in a shooting than their peers. In all, two-thirds of the mortality disadvantage for American men was attributable to people under the age of 50 -- and slightly over half of…

Why is health interesting to anyone? Viewed in a more hackish light: here's a problem; how can we fix it?

It's not a problem that can be 'hacked'.

Much like hunger in the third world: it's a political problem.

Practical solutions have long since been developed and proved in other places. The problems persist where they do, because there's no political will to actually implement the solutions in those places.

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

#25

Post by mattmiller » Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 6:25 PM UTC

I think an easy way to improve the health care industry would be to quadruple the number of urgent cares and keep them all open 24 hours a day. Financially the system encourages urgent care use, but they are often tough to access. Many times in the middle of the night we have to consider taking a child to the ER or just waiting until morning.

I don't know if this would improve general health, but it sure would make me feel like I am getting more for what I pay.

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

#26

Post by roc » Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 6:26 PM UTC

cma wrote: post #16

jchrisa wrote: post #10

No mention of corn and petroleum subsidies.

The bulk of corn subsidies are for ethanol, which should result in prices of i.e. HFCS going up, not down, right?

Only if we assume that absent ethanol, that farmland would be used to grow corn for food/HFCS. Which isn't true. We also subsidize not farming. So much of the land used for ethanol would be otherwise left fallow.

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

#27

Post by w1ntermute » Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 6:27 PM UTC

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #3

The US is at or very near the worst among OECD countries in: infant mortality, child poverty, child health and safety, life expectancy at birth, healthy life expectancy, rate of obesity, disability-adjusted life years, doctors per 1000 people, deaths from treatable conditions, rate of mental health disorders, rate of drug abuse, rate of prescription drug use, incarceration rate, rate of assaults, rate of homicides, i…

Do you know if these things are demographically linked, like education is[0]? I haven't done any research, but my gut tells me they are.

0: http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazing-truth-abou...

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

#28

Post by andrewcooke » Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 6:29 PM UTC

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.…

isn't the point that on average, rational actors would prefer the wait, since, on average, that is correlated with better outcomes? perhaps partly because you presented a false choice - it's often a choice between waiting or not being able to afford it?

what i mean is, well, great rhetoric, but you know, facts, man. facts.

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

#29

Post by maushu » Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 6:31 PM UTC

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?

At least we get treatment not dependent on the quantity of money we have.

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

#30

Post by viraptor » Thu, Jan 10, 2013, 6:33 PM UTC

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.…

Yes, but on average it seems not to work that well, which the article tries to show. Apparently the possibility of waiting 2 months for a specialist (in reality I very rarely see such situation) seems to be better than the current system in the US.