Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

fullheadofhair wrote:

dogma wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:
Technology and treatment wise the US is the best. That is fact.

Is it?

Many statistics seem to contravene this fact. I mean, I guess you might measure technology by "number of MRI machines" or "number of super machine X", but treatment really can only be measured by results. If its simply measured by "treatment" then hitting every sick person with a baseball bat till their retinas detach would allow us to reach 100% treatment.

I guess you may have meant that any curable illness you may have can be cured if you have enough money, but that's true of basically any Western nation. When discussing medical systems the points of contention always revolve around mass considerations.

No, you missed my point but then made the point I was making. What I am saying is on a pure technology advancement and the discovery of new treatment basis the US leads leads the world. My wife works in radiology and what they are doing is nothing short of amazing. However, when it comes to treating the largest number of people in a fair and equitable manner the US sucks. I think if you don't have health insurance your death rate increase by 25% if you have an illness or accident that requires you to go to a hospital - a stat I remember from a US newspaper during Obamacare "debate".

Realistically if you can afford the level of technological care that the U.S. can provide at it's fullest potential borders are likely meaningless to you and it's highly likely you're traveling to a care facility that specializes in your malady. Training and equipment are not the sole purview of the United States, other nations can easily afford the most expensive equipment we have. As much as it is it's not that expensive to secure trained doctors and the best items. At those levels of cost any number of nations can have the best treatment options. Pioneering technology and it's possession don't truly make for good health care if it's overzealously used or misused. Statistically quality of care is reduced as the number of specialists utilized rises, and nations like Japan and Germany are leaders in medical fields with often equal or greater successes then the United States. The U.S. attracts some of the best professionals in the world as it's business model for health care is very advantageous for specialty and surgical caregivers, but those people exist elsewhere.

chaos0xomega wrote:How exactly is France's healthcare system structured, etc? I'd be interested to know how they are able to pay less than the US does and still deliver a better system.

It's a mix of private and public healthcare, where people are given a level of guaranteed care, then offered incentives to go out and arrange their own healthcare with private companies if they wish.

The structure of the system isn't anything incredible, there are similar systems in place in just about every developed country, it's just that for cultural and political reasons France is willing to spend a bit more on their system than other countries. Britain spends 8% of GDP on healthcare, and France spends 11% - that difference in funding makes a difference to the quality of healthcare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I'd rather live in a country with proper air conditioning, truth be told. Hell, it doesn't even have to be the USA, as much as I love it.

It isn't about France not having decent air conditioning. It's about having people used to certain temperatures, and housing built to retain or release heat.

In Australia, a very hot country, people were as bemused as you are that folk in France and the UK were dying at temperatures we'd consider a bit too chilly to go down to the beach. Yet in Australia when temperatures get to levels that Europeans would consider time to sit in tents connected to their refridgerators, our old people start dying from the cold.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RatBot wrote:My money is, seriously, on less fatties and better diets. I have to wonder how much of America's medical expenses are related to obesity issues, which could range from cardiovascular disease to diabetes.

Maybe, obesity certainly plays a part in .

Yet, the US is not the fattest country in the world (I know Australia recently overtook you, aussie aussie aussie oy oy oy). But it is uniquely positioned in terms of the waste of it's healthcare system.

Think about it this way, I have a guaranteed level of healthcare here in Australia, I might have to wait an hour to see a doctor willing to take me on the government's dime, but if I'm sick I will get seen. If I want care with shorter waiting periods, I can choose a private insurer. The key there is I get to choose, because I'm paying it myself, I get to look through what HBF and Medibank and all the others are offering, and decide which company's services and costs are best for me. I did this recently with my fiance, because we wanted to go on the same plan, and we sat there with consultants from different companies and they explained what they did and didn't offer. The companies are driven to compete against each other because consumers are exercising real choice, and against the general position, because they have to offer something inherently desirous to draw us away from the public option.

In the US, if you want to have coverage, you have to be with a private insurer. The alternative to private insurance is 'hope like crazy you don't get cancer'. Right there the insurers have a captive audience. To make it even worse, most people don't even pick their own insurers, instead their companies picks an insurer based on whatever they think is important, and you put up with it. That's a great big intermediary lumped between the provider and the insurer, and that kills the efficiencies that should be gained from people getting to pick their own providers.

It's the waste of that basic system that's costing you money, and giving you poor health outcomes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:Funny, I don't ever recall of mentioning that the US system is an okay system.

Then what was the point of your comment on the US having lots of people, other than as a means to defend the instances of heart disease?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:

o0shotty0o wrote:Oh my .... thats alot of people.Ok lets stay on subject though i dident create this thread to talk only about america.Any other brits out there ?

Yeah, we're here. We're just ashamed of you.

What did this guy do?

I submit heat deaths are indicative of the health care system.

Health care involves identifying an issue and getting a patient to an appropriate provider. When there is a wide spread issue, part of the system is responsible for communicating to the population what is going on, how to ID it and treat it, and steps on what to do if you recognize it in others. When civilians, especially the old and infirm which most of those deaths were, are dying from heat related issues, the health care system failed.

It takes a while for heat related issues to turn to to heat stroke and kill you, unless you are doing massive labor in really bad conditions. These people were not.

In many countries , when you develop those symptoms, you call and an ambulance comes and an EMT fixes you up and gets you to a hospital. Or a buddy or family member gets you to a hospital. Obviously something drastic happened in France in the summer of 2003 and the system failed. Period. There is no other way to explain that many deaths from a common cause in that period of time.

And ALL heat injuries are treatable and recoverable. All of them. It is close to criminal to allow folks to die from heat injuries. It is not like cancer that can hide in you or heart disease that the first real symptom may be a massive cardiac arrest.

So, yeah, to me it makes perfect sense to use several thousand preventable deaths in such a small population as indicative of the health care system.

Your opinion may differ.

ShumaGorath wrote: Micheal Moore is not a trustworthy documentarian, he's a propagandist. He edits interviews, falsifies quotes, and presents hearsay as fact.

Aye Shuma knows the score, as much as I lean towards the dems in the states, I could never shake the feeling that MM was pretty much the exact same as the folks that he slates all the time.

His films are just left wing propaganda.

He is also very fat and irritating, he looks like he needs a fething good scrub as well and I have no respect for people with poor personal hygiene.

Without resorting to pulling random stats from t'internet, I'd have to say Cuba. I'm sure I read somewhere that Americans and even Europeans are travelling there for healthcare.
Not sure where though......

Actually what happens in America, is if you dont have insurance, you tell the nurse staff, they set you up with someone from DHS (Department of Human Services) and then they treat you. Sooooooooooo no body actually dies in this process. Yea its far from perfect, and the DHS insurance is laughable half the time, but you will at least be treated

Ouze wrote:

That is hands down the best i have seen...
Also Albatross has already voiced my thoughts on this thread.

Ouze wrote:

Thats my biggest lol of the week.

Although, Ive only been back from my lengthy ban for an hour.

You havnt missed much in a week

o0shotty0o wrote:Im not even going to mention america , if you dont have money there , thay will just let you die on the street in front of the hospital.

This is the most ignorant thing I've read in 2011.

What did this guy do?

kronk wrote:

o0shotty0o wrote:Im not even going to mention america , if you dont have money there , thay will just let you die on the street in front of the hospital.

This is the most ignorant thing I've read in 2011.

You should see his other thread. Half his comments fought for the "most ignorant thing I've read of 2011" title.

Of course as it was pure trolling, who knows what he really thinks as a person.

kronk wrote:

o0shotty0o wrote:Im not even going to mention america , if you dont have money there , thay will just let you die on the street in front of the hospital.

This is the most ignorant thing I've read in 2011.

Good for you.

o0shotty0o wrote:No i watched a documetary called sicko , he shows footage of someone dieing outside a hospital becaus he couldent show that he had any insurance or money.

That wasn't a documentary in the way of being a work of nonfiction.

An excellent site for this kind of discussion is Nationmaster.

I would suppose that an indicator of a country's healthcare system would depend on a basic number of healthy years that people live.
Not being a statistician, I am unable to break this down sufficiently to give a truly accurate picture as there are a number of factors that could play into the results (population density, wars, comparative wealth, etc.)


Life Expectancy (number of healthy years):

# 1 Japan: 73.6 years
# 2 Switzerland: 72.8 years
# 3 Sweden: 71.8 years
# 4 Australia: 71.6 years
# 5 France: 71.3 years
# 6 Iceland: 71.1 years
= 7 Austria: 71 years
= 7 Italy: 71 years
# 9 Spain: 70.9 years
# 10 Norway: 70.8 years

Having lived in Japan and utilized their healthcare system, I am able to attest to how well the system operates and both the quality and availability of care are fantastic.

o0shotty0o wrote:

MrDwhitey wrote:Yup, sadly the NHS has been awesome for me, so no issues.

Chowderhead wrote:It's too late, Shotty.

No, I think not. I just don't know how to change the damn icon.

Well , have you got any medical illness that needs expensive treatment ? im sure its ok to get cream or whatever but what about the medecin thet costs alot of money and that saves lives ?

Now you have a point. If you're going to compare health systems you have to compare what they actually do, not heat deaths, not rate of heart disease (protip thats lifestyle), but actual treatment, cure rates, cost to patient, but also total cost. A system can be great but incredibly inefficient, or great but only for a small number of people.

CptJake wrote:I submit heat deaths are indicative of the health care system.

Health care involves identifying an issue and getting a patient to an appropriate provider.

The guy with cold water and air conditioning, and maybe bags of ice? Because that's how you treat heat stroke, even in a hospital. France identified these issues, and made them public, but air conditioning didn't exist for many people, and heat stroke (which, if you're young, elderly or infirm, sets on without exertion) affects judgment; which is a big deal if you aren't, say, conditioned to deal with heat stroke.

CptJake wrote:
In many countries , when you develop those symptoms, you call and an ambulance comes and an EMT fixes you up and gets you to a hospital. Or a buddy or family member gets you to a hospital. Obviously something drastic happened in France in the summer of 2003 and the system failed. Period

If you develop heat stroke, and aren't already treating it, you aren't making it to the hospital.

And here I thought Americans believed in self-reliance.

KingCracker wrote:Actually what happens in America, is if you dont have insurance, you tell the nurse staff, they set you up with someone from DHS (Department of Human Services) and then they treat you. Sooooooooooo no body actually dies in this process. Yea its far from perfect, and the DHS insurance is laughable half the time, but you will at least be treated

QFT.

dogma wrote:And here I thought Americans believed in self-reliance.

Well, I mean, up to the point where you actually can't do something yourself, or simply don't know how.

You're right about heat stroke though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:

You know who else believed in troll threads?

Hitler.

Dogma's reply made me think of something..

Do you think that there is a correlation between education level and life expectancy?

I mean, say a country is full of people who complete university, wont they have better stats not just due to the health service itself, but also down to the care the citizens take of themselves? Isnt this a good reason why Japan are up there? Not because they have the best doctors and hospitals, but the best diets and exercise regimes?

I mean, I learned alot about sports science and nutrition thanks to my years in the commando's, my only real vice is binge drinking.

I know what I need to do when its extremely cold, or extremely hot. I know how to ensure I stay hydrated, I know basic first aid and battlefield triage. I know that protein and salts and fats are all essential for fuelling your body efficiently, but in the correct amounts.

Isnt this stuff more important than the actual health service? Prevention is more important than a cure, and I haven't seen a doctor in 15 years, so surely It wouldn't matter if the nation I lived in had gakky healthcare right?

I hypothesize that the UK performs poorly thanks to a poor education system, and a large percentage of its populous relying on state wellfare, thus they either ignorantly or purposely develop drink/drugs/obesity issues and become reliant on the system.

In a nutshell, the more fat, stupid, ignorant chavs you have, the more they drink and smoke and do drugs, and the worse your nations average health is.

Not due to the poor service, but due to the citizens. And I bet if you check the stats for heart disease in somewhere that's famous for fat drunk chav's (Glasgow for example) they are enormously higher than somewhere nice and pleasant like Oxford.

Whaddya think?

That your posting style is abrasive yet often fun to read.

mattyrm wrote: I hypothesize that the UK performs poorly thanks to a poor education system, and a large percentage of its populous relying on state wellfare, thus they either ignorantly or purposely develop drink/drugs/obesity issues and become reliant on the system.

In a nutshell, the more fat, stupid, ignorant chavs you have, the more they drink and smoke and do drugs, and the worse your nations average health is.

Not due to the poor service, but due to the citizens. And I bet if you check the stats for heart disease in somewhere that's famous for fat drunk chav's (Glasgow for example) they are enormously higher than somewhere nice and pleasant like Oxford.

Whaddya think?

I think that you're on to something. I don't know if any healthcare system could counteract millions of people eating themselves to death.

You paint such a lovely picture of Glasgow, by the way.

Monster Rain wrote:You paint such a lovely picture of Glasgow, by the way.

A Scottish friend of mine told me this wonderful little tale.

"In Britain, it's eat five fruit/veg a day. In Scotland, it's three, in Glasgow, it's one and be glad of it."

When I went up to Edinburgh recently via bus, when we stopped at Glasgow, the only people getting on were five youths whom I believe the label "Chav" could be applied, and a Social Worker. That made me happy. Quite well behaved chaps though, so no issue.

Monster Rain wrote:

I think that you're on to something. I don't know if any healthcare system could counteract millions of people eating themselves to death.

You paint such a lovely picture of Glasgow, by the way.

If as Freddie Mercury said, "Fat bottomed Girls they make the rocking world go round" then the city of Glasgow should be rewarded for it's herculean effort in making the world continue to spin on its axis.

Citizens of Glasgow, I salute you!

Whats wrong with being a chav ? or a yob ? or an asbo?

I personally like talking to them becaus thay act and talk to me like im super man just becaus ive been educated and thay have not , makes me feel powerful. hehe

o0shotty0o wrote:
Whats wrong with being a chav ? or a yob ? or an asbo?

I personally like talking to them becaus thay act and talk to me like im super man just becaus ive been educated...

That's definitely the impression that I get.

Monster Rain wrote:

o0shotty0o wrote:
Whats wrong with being a chav ? or a yob ? or an asbo?

I personally like talking to them becaus thay act and talk to me like im super man just becaus ive been educated...

That's definitely the impression that I get.

Why the hate ?

Sasori wrote:Are people really going to try to discuss things with this guy after the last thread?

Doesn't look like it.

There just aren't words for the shame i feel at the ignorance of some of my countrymen... This thread makes Jesus cry

Oh my, so much rage. Well since Im no expert on this subject I wont make any bold claims, but I do belive that Germany, the UK, Norway, France, Sweden, Dennmark and other European/ Asian countries has excelt medical systems, but if I had to choose I would have to go with Norway since its my homeland.