Best Healthcare System in the World

[Septic]

A couple days in and no one has provided any evidence showing our system performs poorly. Can’t say I’m shocked

Who specifically said "our system performs poorly?"

Is this another example of you creating points to an argument no one else is having?

 

[ButchPlz]

I don't think my take is exactly what you're looking for but since no one is able to provide the content you asked for, I'll share.
I don't believe we have the best healthcare in the world. I believe we have the most innovative, the best emergency, and the best critical care in the world. Basically, we excel at crisis care. We also do a pretty good job of managing chronic issues pharmacologically.
With that said, I admit it is next to impossible to identify where the best healthcare is. The best healthcare is where the state of being healthy is best managed. We don't focus on retention of good health as much as we focus on the what to do once the good health is jeopardized.

I think this is it. Health in total involves prevention and keeping people away from needing "healthcare". I don't think the US does a good job of that either.

 

[Septic]

I don't think my take is exactly what you're looking for but since no one is able to provide the content you asked for, I'll share.
I don't believe we have the best healthcare in the world. I believe we have the most innovative, the best emergency, and the best critical care in the world. Basically, we excel at crisis care. We also do a pretty good job of managing chronic issues pharmacologically.
With that said, I admit it is next to impossible to identify where the best healthcare is. The best healthcare is where the state of being healthy is best managed. We don't focus on retention of good health as much as we focus on the what to do once the good health is jeopardized.

I agree, seems like the only complaints I hear or comparisons revolve around the value of U.S. healthcare versus that of other first world, industrialized countries. More specifically, how the tremendous cost isn't commiserate with significantly better outcomes.

 

[Rickyvol77]

I think this is it. Health in total involves prevention and keeping people away from needing "healthcare". I don't think the US does a good job of that either.

Again having diversity and freedoms mean people have the choice to make bad choices. You can’t force someone to eat healthy and exercise. Or to not do drugs or be involved in gangs

 

[ButchPlz]

Again having diversity and freedoms mean people have the choice to make bad choices. You can’t force someone to eat healthy and exercise. Or to not do drugs or be involved in gangs

Sure, I understand that. It doesn't mean I shouldn't think we ought to work on our overall culture to make it healthier.

 

[Velo Vol]

If you're a fully-insured American, then it's the best.

If you're a low-income (uninsured) American, you'd be better off in a different system.

 

[Vol8188]

What treatment? Which disease?

Most all diseases. Here's an example


https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13429/w13429.pdf

 

[LouderVol]

I agree, seems like the only complaints I hear or comparisons revolve around the value of U.S. healthcare versus that of other first world, industrialized countries. More specifically, how the tremendous cost isn't commiserate with significantly better outcomes.

A good chunk of that is because the other states hide the costs of their care. All of them have higher tax rates that go into their healthcare.

So when they spend less of their take home pay on healthcare, that's because they have already paid a bigger withholding, and thus dont know the true costs of their care.

I have yet to see a break down that averages everything out for costs and also for specific individuals. The typical european is healthier than the typical american. Makes sense their healthcare is cheaper. What if you compare their 400lb lardarses with ours, and take the tax thing into account. Is their still a large difference in costs paid vs care received?

I would think with the larger averages at play with a single payer system that their 400lbers are paying less than ours with all things considered. But I would think that delta is pretty small. Small enough where it doesnt justify scrapping our system.

 

[Vol8188]

I don't think my take is exactly what you're looking for but since no one is able to provide the content you asked for, I'll share.
I don't believe we have the best healthcare in the world. I believe we have the most innovative, the best emergency, and the best critical care in the world. Basically, we excel at crisis care. We also do a pretty good job of managing chronic issues pharmacologically.
With that said, I admit it is next to impossible to identify where the best healthcare is. The best healthcare is where the state of being healthy is best managed. We don't focus on retention of good health as much as we focus on the what to do once the good health is jeopardized.

If we are the top at emergency care, cancer, critical care, and chronic, it's hard to proclaim we aren't the best overall. There's not a lot left.

 

[Vol8188]

Who specifically said "our system performs poorly?"

Is this another example of you creating points to an argument no one else is having?

That's the way people treat the claim that we are ranked 72nd in the world or 37th in the world. Granted those aren't measures of performance, but that's how that data is treated, spoke about, presented, etc.

 

[McDad]

If we are the top at emergency care, cancer, critical care, and chronic, it's hard to proclaim we aren't the best overall. There's not a lot left.

Understood. But those things aren't caring for health as much as they are caring for urgencies.

My version of "best healthcare" would correlate stats where:
1. people rarely needed perpetual intervention for manageable conditions,
2. there was a low rate of pharm usage,
3. exceptional longevity,
4. and excellent quality of life (independence) even among the aged.

 

[Velo Vol]

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13429/w13429.pdf

If this is correct that Americans have more health problems but get more treatments, is that a wash?

 

[Vol8188]

If this is correct that Americans have more health problems but get more treatments, is that a wash?

View attachment 433458

The data I showed you was relative to what % of people with the disease were treated for that. So an American with diabetes is more likely to receive treatment for that disease than a Canadian with diabetes.

 

[Vol8188]

Understood. But those things aren't caring for health as much as they are caring for urgencies.

My version of "best healthcare" would correlate stats where:
1. people rarely needed perpetual intervention for manageable conditions,
2. there was a low rate of pharm usage,
3. exceptional longevity,
4. and excellent quality of life (independence) even among the aged.

1. Hard to blame the system and not the person there (higher rates of drug, alcohol, and tobacco use along with obesity. All the providers can do is treat and educate.

2. If we had a lower rate of pharm usage they would proclaim “lack of access”, same with 1. But I’m not sure that’s a valid measure of the system either way. It’s hard to numerically state if people are under/over treated in general.

3. If you remove car crashes and homicides we lead the world in longevity.

4. The problem with measuring 4 as an indicator of a great system is great healthcare will also extend poor quality lives. So these measures of quality life years are not great indicators.

 

[85SugarVol]

I agree, seems like the only complaints I hear or comparisons revolve around the value of U.S. healthcare versus that of other first world, industrialized countries. More specifically, how the tremendous cost isn't commiserate with significantly better outcomes.

Do you know which areas of healthcare we are most out of alignment in the Cost vs Outcomes analysis?

 

[85SugarVol]

My 2 Cents -

The United States has the best healthcare in the world. US Healthcare is not available to all Americans.

 

[Vol8188]

If you're a fully-insured American, then it's the best.

If you're a low-income (uninsured) American, you'd be better off in a different system.

The data I’ve provided has been for all Americans. The system works better as a whole. If it were a matter of only the insured having the best healthcare, we wouldn’t have the world’s highest cancer survival rates for example

 

[VolStrom]

The data I showed you was relative to what % of people with the disease were treated for that. So an American with diabetes is more likely to receive treatment for that disease than a Canadian with diabetes.

Doctors can treat people with diabetes and things like HBP all day long, but if they leave the office with a prescription and don't fill it because it costs too much, what good is the treatment?

 

[Vol8188]

My 2 Cents -

The United States has the best healthcare in the world. US Healthcare is not available to all Americans.

I don’t think we’d be the world leader in things like cancer treatment and survival rates( obviously very expensive) if it weren’t available to all.

 

[Vol8188]

Doctors can treat people with diabetes and things like HBP all day long, but if they leave the office with a prescription and don't fill it because it costs too much, what good is the treatment?

If you look at my previous post it does not say “goes to the doctor for” it says “takes insulin”. So Americans are it’s diabetes are more likely to go to receive the medication needed for their disease

Most all diseases. Here's an example
View attachment 433450

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w13429/w13429.pdf

Edit: I don’t have the data to back up this next claim, but I believe we also lead the world in medications per capita.

 

[Vol8188]

I do think it’s important to understand the reason for our impressive healthcare system, our wealth.

Especially when we consider other topics such as climate change, tax policy, etc. because you can’t have great healthcare or care about the environment without it

 

[McDad]

1. Hard to blame the system and not the person there (higher rates of drug, alcohol, and tobacco use along with obesity. All the providers can do is treat and educate.

2. If we had a lower rate of pharm usage they would proclaim “lack of access”, same with 1. But I’m not sure that’s a valid measure of the system either way. It’s hard to numerically state if people are under/over treated in general.

3. If you remove car crashes and homicides we lead the world in longevity.

4. The problem with measuring 4 as an indicator of a great system is great healthcare will also extend poor quality lives. So these measures of quality life years are not great indicators.

It is fair to differentiate between the system in place and the personal responsibility of those in that system. I am choosing to roll those together only because the exceptional system of crisis management gives people a cavalier attitude about shunning their personal responsibility. I think they are connected.

Number 2 really isn't a refutation on my point as an adequate metric but more a presumption on what the narrative would be in our system if there was less pharm usage.

If personal responsibility is in play on point number 1, then it is in play in point number 3. We can't fault the system when it falls under personal responsibility. Therefore, I don't think we can credit the system by faulting personal responsibility.

I think you missed the mark on point 4. There will be a bell curve of "quality of life" under any system. What you missed is the bell curve moving wholly further right along the x axis so that there are higher numbers with good to great quality of life even though there will still be those in the curve with a lesser degree compared to others in the curve. But comparing both bell curves in both systems we can declare one approach leads to more people with high quality of life compared to the other curve from the other approach.

 

[McDad]

Continuing to consider the relationship between the health care consumers of a society and the health care system.

Another factor connecting the two is the relative wealth of a society. Wealth isn't a function of the health care system but I think it is common sense that people with financial resources have an advantage over people who lack when it comes to longevity and health.

 

[85SugarVol]

I don’t think we’d be the world leader in things like cancer treatment and survival rates( obviously very expensive) if it weren’t available to all.

*US Healthcare is not immediately available to all.

 

[DonjoVol]

It depends on what you mean by "indicative of our healthcare system".

With respect to medical technology, prowess, and outcomes, I would agree. With respect to how costly it is, it is absolutely tied to it.

What is great is now that here is a push back on fat shaming. Hell, now there is a push to accept being obese as "healthy".

It's only okay if you refer to Republicans like Trump or any conservative as obese. Otherwise you are guilty of fat shaming.