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

31–40 of 110 posts

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

#31

Post by refurb »

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…

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.

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

#32

Post by dataminer »

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.…

What you are referring to are elective procedures, and 2 months of waiting time wouldn't kill you. There is no waiting time for emergencies in Canada or Europe.

Yes if you throw alot of money, you get state of art facilities and top doctors, but are you getting the return on investment if the healthcare system is lagging behind the "welfare states".

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

#33

Post by colmvp »

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.…

Better to wait than in a lot of cases not have access to it at all.

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

#34

Post by scarmig »

aresant wrote: post #12

This is a great example of how macro-statistics are inherently useless to predict individual outcomes (or even individual group outcome). I'd go so far to say irresponsible to publish without disclaimers since these kinds of studies are so easy to regurgitate and buy into about the "state of the USA". A glaring example - how can you even consider Japan a "peer" nation to the USA when comparing health? Ethnicity has b…

That correction might make sense for ethnicity. But class?

Defending the USA's health system by saying "well, it has a stark class divide which pre-ordains that a large proportion of its population will get inadequate health care compared to other countries" is only valuable in that it tells us that to improve health outcomes, we've got to break down our class system.

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

#35

Post by njs12345 »

viraptor wrote: post #30
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.

Also, in many systems (excepting Canada, where I believe there is no alternate private system) you can see a specialist with no wait if you're willing to pay for it.

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

#36

Post by scarmig »

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.…

My US-based dad recently had to wait a month for a knee replacement surgery.

And, of course, for people who can't afford the inflated prices we've got here... the waiting time is infinite.

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

#37

Post by maxerickson »

roc wrote: post #24
npsimons wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Most health care systems are grappling with costs and the demand for care outstripping the supply. It isn't a solved problem.

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

#38

Post by gramsey »

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.…

What kind of point are you trying to make?

> 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.

People fly to many first-world countries for medical care, including "Canada and Europe". Yes, if people have vast sums of money, they can receive excellent medical treatment in the US (as they could in many countries).

However, that's not the problem though, is it. The problem is that in general, most Americans fall behind in health compared to other first-world nations.

> but there needs to be some method of exclusion when demand is high and supply is low

Are you arguing that the state of health of the majority of the country is irrelevant as long as high-income earners can receive the best medical care?

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

#39

Post by zanny »

maushu wrote: post #29
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.

I'm American, but I know a lot of people from Canada, and after many conversations, the "2 months for a specialist" is bullshit. In practice, preventative medicine and not having to fear to afford healthcare when you need it drastically reduce the demand on the most expensive and specialized doctors and practices because you deal with problems before they end up in the emergency room.

I have no health insurance right now. If I got sick in Canada, I would absolutely visit my doctor, get a prescription and diagnosis, and be on my way. In the US, I have to pray I don't have a severe disease and try using over the counter meds because I can't afford upwards of $800 doctors visits if they perform any tests. It is around $150 just to walk in the door.

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

#40

Post by refurb »

dataminer wrote: post #32
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.…

What you are referring to are elective procedures, and 2 months of waiting time wouldn't kill you. There is no waiting time for emergencies in Canada or Europe. Yes if you throw alot of money, you get state of art facilities and top doctors, but are you getting the return on investment if the healthcare system is lagging behind the "welfare states".

Not true in Canada. The Supreme Court ruled that the wait times in Canada violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms because there was no private option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v._Quebec_(Attorney_Ge...

Post reply on HN