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.
Other than “it took a long time”, what was the bad outcome?
We’re you misdiagnosed? Did you suffer injury? Did you end up with loss of function? Any long term consequences? Hospital acquired infection?
“I didn’t like that I had to wait so long” is a customer satisfaction metric that doesn’t tell you anything about actual health outcomes. But our system cares more about Press Ganey Scores than health outcomes.
d-usa wrote: Other than “it took a long time”, what was the bad outcome?
We’re you misdiagnosed? Did you suffer injury? Did you end up with loss of function? Any long term consequences? Hospital acquired infection?
“I didn’t like that I had to wait so long” is a customer satisfaction metric that doesn’t tell you anything about actual health outcomes. But our system cares more about Press Ganey Scores than health outcomes.
You didn’t like the service, but there really was no bad health outcomes and you ended up with the right diagnosis and treatment.
I got a diagnosis, no treatment, I cant blame them for that entirely, I would have had to come back in 2 weeks, but went to Karachi 4 days later (got treatment there) fortunately there was nothing that would have caused any permanent injury, but it should have been wrapped (I am not a doctor, that was what i was told)
I feel like doctors are a lot like utility companies. At the end of the day, their role is so integral to just living modern life that it amplifies everything they do in the eyes of us plebs. The stakes reach ludicrous levels to us and we hold anything and everything against them. It's not really fair, but it's how it is.
LordofHats wrote: I feel like doctors are a lot like utility companies. At the end of the day, their role is so integral to just living modern life that it amplifies everything they do in the eyes of us plebs. The stakes reach ludicrous levels to us and we hold anything and everything against them. It's not really fair, but it's how it is.
Probably the most honest comment I have seen in one of these threads.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.
Well that seems fair. Rubbish our most treasured national achievement over a treatment for a minor ailment 17 years ago that cost you a pittance compared to what it may have cost elsewhere.
the point is it cost more than it would have elsewhere. RediMed in Indiana would have cost less than $20. so your snark aside, NHS is not this miracle great system its praised for. Sure I hear Brits talk it up to us all the time, but living there I heard and experienced far different. Maybe some cities are better than others, but it certainly is not all roses.
You make sweeping statements attacking a treasured national achievement based on a personal anecdote of minor inconvenience from nearly 20 years ago, and you better get used to snarky, tongue in cheek comments. You're lucky you don't get an eye roll too.
I'm glad your cancer meds are cheaper now, luckily the stent procedure for my father, the breast cancer treatment for my friends wife, and the extensive treatment for prostate cancer for my neighbour are all completely free of charge, forever. Aside from prescription charges of £8.80 per item or £29.10 for 3 monthly pre-paid, of course.
I'm enormously proud that any UK citizen can receive free health care for their entire life regardless of ability to pay, personal circumstances or medical history. That is a worthy, and noble achievement I think despite whatever else the British are guilty of.
And before you start posting up some republican gubbins rubbishing socialised health care and death boards or whatever it is your lot seem to think is the downside of universal health care, I simply don't give a gak, and never will. You can keep your insurance based system, and we'll keep ours, and we'd very much appreciate it if your medical companies would take their interest in our NHS elsewhere. Because apart from in the heads of some of the most deluded Tories, they are most definitely not welcome on this side of the pond thank you very much indeedy.
that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it, by all means enjoy your welfare state, and super high taxes, even a tax on each TV in the house. How about we also keep all those medical advances our system provides, which while the UK is 2nd in, is orders of magnitude far behind us. see snotty attitude can go both ways, glad you dont give a damn, there is a reason people mostly go to the US for healthcare and not the UK. 11 hours for a simple diagnosis is "inconvenient" for a knee injury sure, sitting in pain for that long is no big deal, I am just glad it wasnt something like say a blood clot. thats not even detailing your much higher death rate in hospitals, and no thats not from some right wing 'Murican report but your own news agencies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: When the main complaint boils down to “I had to wait longer than I would have liked” and not any actual health outcomes, it should give one some thought.
again 3 doctors over 11 hours had it been a blood clot in my leg, could have been fatal.
Well, seeing as you're coy about numbers I did a bit of research, (about 60 secs on google) and it would seem that if you earn £50k in the UK the percentage of my total tax for the year that pays for the NHS is £2469 ($3344 ish). If I'm the only earner in the family, which coincidentally I am at the minute, that "premium" cover my whole family (wife and 2 kids) for full, comprehensive medical and dental care no matter what happens to them, guaranteed.
However the average wage in the UK is 27k, meaning a total tax bill of £5748 of which 18.5% is spent on the NHS which comes to £1063. Not bad considering that if you're single, or a family man you're still paying the same, and everyone gets the same health and dental provision.
Now, admittedly looking up medical insurance for US citizens is clearly riveting stuff, so I thoroughly enjoyed briefly scanning a handful of articles after my search which said much the same thing. American health insurance ain't cheap, in fact it's a bit more than our above average earner earlier would expect to pay and quitell a bit more than the averge chap in the street. And there's something called "deductibles" which seem a bit cheeky and don't half ramp up the costs at point of use.
Frankly, I'm not even that bothered if this is a grossly exaggerated Web of lies, but a brief search does rather satisfactorily suggest that, so far as numbers are concerned in terms of costs per head for each citizen when it comes to health coverage, you're talking out of your hoop old chap and does rather put your unfortunate story of agony and inconvenience in perspective. Maybe you should have gone private?
I am off course more than happy to be proven completely wrong, but tbh I cannot be arsed to dig about any further so if you could provide some sort of clear easy to read explanation to why this is all total rubbish that'd be great. (I jest, I don't care if you reply or not, I've wasted rather too much time bothering with this tedious conservative hot potato of bollocks as it is.)
Ps it's not a "tax" on each individual TV in the house, it's a rather outdated compulsory levy per household that pays for public service broadcasting but goes no where near the treasury. As it happens I thinks this is fething bollocks too, but I'd happily pay it, and twice more as long as I don't have American style health care in exchange.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
A Town Called Malus wrote: Hey, it's not our fault that due to our single payer healthcare the pharmaceutical companies have to negotiate prices with large bodies capable of resisting their price gouging.
Or that our healthcare systems aren't built around some middleman making a profit, pushing the end user costs even higher.
Yeah, and you get what you pay for. The care I got at the NHS in Huntingdon was worse than anything I received in Cambodia, Bangladesh, or even Niger and not even remotely comparable to the US or Japan. Wouldn't be over proud of it.
Well that seems fair. Rubbish our most treasured national achievement over a treatment for a minor ailment 17 years ago that cost you a pittance compared to what it may have cost elsewhere.
the point is it cost more than it would have elsewhere. RediMed in Indiana would have cost less than $20. so your snark aside, NHS is not this miracle great system its praised for. Sure I hear Brits talk it up to us all the time, but living there I heard and experienced far different. Maybe some cities are better than others, but it certainly is not all roses.
You make sweeping statements attacking a treasured national achievement based on a personal anecdote of minor inconvenience from nearly 20 years ago, and you better get used to snarky, tongue in cheek comments. You're lucky you don't get an eye roll too.
I'm glad your cancer meds are cheaper now, luckily the stent procedure for my father, the breast cancer treatment for my friends wife, and the extensive treatment for prostate cancer for my neighbour are all completely free of charge, forever. Aside from prescription charges of £8.80 per item or £29.10 for 3 monthly pre-paid, of course.
I'm enormously proud that any UK citizen can receive free health care for their entire life regardless of ability to pay, personal circumstances or medical history. That is a worthy, and noble achievement I think despite whatever else the British are guilty of.
And before you start posting up some republican gubbins rubbishing socialised health care and death boards or whatever it is your lot seem to think is the downside of universal health care, I simply don't give a gak, and never will. You can keep your insurance based system, and we'll keep ours, and we'd very much appreciate it if your medical companies would take their interest in our NHS elsewhere. Because apart from in the heads of some of the most deluded Tories, they are most definitely not welcome on this side of the pond thank you very much indeedy.
that magical "free" you guys keep lying about, its not "free" you pay for it each year ,your taxes are obscene.(you likely pay more in taxes than I pay for taxes and my premiums combined) thats what pays for it, by all means enjoy your welfare state, and super high taxes, even a tax on each TV in the house. How about we also keep all those medical advances our system provides, which while the UK is 2nd in, is orders of magnitude far behind us. see snotty attitude can go both ways, glad you dont give a damn, there is a reason people mostly go to the US for healthcare and not the UK. 11 hours for a simple diagnosis is "inconvenient" for a knee injury sure, sitting in pain for that long is no big deal, I am just glad it wasnt something like say a blood clot. thats not even detailing your much higher death rate in hospitals, and no thats not from some right wing 'Murican report but your own news agencies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: When the main complaint boils down to “I had to wait longer than I would have liked” and not any actual health outcomes, it should give one some thought.
again 3 doctors over 11 hours had it been a blood clot in my leg, could have been fatal.
Well, seeing as you're coy about numbers I did a bit of research, (about 60 secs on google) and it would seem that if you earn £50k in the UK the percentage of my total tax for the year that pays for the NHS is £2469 ($3344 ish). If I'm the only earner in the family, which coincidentally I am at the minute, that "premium" cover my whole family (wife and 2 kids) for full, comprehensive medical and dental care no matter what happens to them, guaranteed.
However the average wage in the UK is 27k, meaning a total tax bill of £5748 of which 18.5% is spent on the NHS which comes to £1063. Not bad considering that if you're single, or a family man you're still paying the same, and everyone gets the same health and dental provision.
Now, admittedly looking up medical insurance for US citizens is clearly riveting stuff, so I thoroughly enjoyed briefly scanning a handful of articles after my search which said much the same thing. American health insurance ain't cheap, in fact it's a bit more than our above average earner earlier would expect to pay and quitell a bit more than the averge chap in the street. And there's something called "deductibles" which seem a bit cheeky and don't half ramp up the costs at point of use.
Frankly, I'm not even that bothered if this is a grossly exaggerated Web of lies, but a brief search does rather satisfactorily suggest that, so far as numbers are concerned in terms of costs per head for each citizen when it comes to health coverage, you're talking out of your hoop old chap and does rather put your unfortunate story of agony and inconvenience in perspective. Maybe you should have gone private?
I am off course more than happy to be proven completely wrong, but tbh I cannot be arsed to dig about any further so if you could provide some sort of clear easy to read explanation to why this is all total rubbish that'd be great. (I jest, I don't care if you reply or not, I've wasted rather too much time bothering with this tedious conservative hot potato of bollocks as it is.)
Ps it's not a "tax" on each individual TV in the house, it's a rather outdated compulsory levy per household that pays for public service broadcasting but goes no where near the treasury. As it happens I thinks this is fething bollocks too, but I'd happily pay it, and twice more as long as I don't have American style health care in exchange.
and still manage to completely ignore and gloss over all the gak in the NHS, you're as dishonest as I expected "web of lies"? ..cute., and yeah the little fellow in the truck that supposedly can tell if I have BBC said each tv, not each household. but your probably right, I have as low of an opinion of you as you have of me, so if dont care about reply sure, will be glad to ignore you too.
Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/13 23:47:45
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Pretty much. Kings is just deflecting from the fact that a major claim his argument hinges on, the US healthcare is cheaper, isn't true. The healthcare you get will always be better than the healthcare you can't afford to get. Also harping on a tiny piece of anecdote that is outdated and irrelevant to the broader picture.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Left and Right, pretty much hate one another.
Only one side hates facts, though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/14 00:03:59
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Pretty much. Kings is just deflecting from the fact that a major claim his argument hinges on, the US healthcare is cheaper, isn't true. The healthcare you get will always be better than the healthcare you can't afford to get. Also harping on a tiny piece of anecdote that is outdated and irrelevant to the broader picture.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Left and Right, pretty much hate one another.
Only one side hates facts, though.
riight, sure ...you keep believing that last one, leftists are as big a liars as anyone I have ever seen, the rights lies are lies, the lefts lies are 'facts" sure. glad of you to cherry pick my arguments, I made quite a few claims not just cheaper, but thats ok show that bias strong. pretty safe to say there is no "deflecting" we do hate each other.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/14 00:09:33
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Left and Right, pretty much hate one another.
Modern-day politics is just a giant game of soccer (that's football you European heathens!) with everyone falling down pretending to be hurt.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/14 00:13:55
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Left and Right, pretty much hate one another.
Modern-day politics is just a giant game of soccer (that's football you European heathens!) with everyone falling down pretending to be hurt.
I thinks it has gone beyond politics and into every day culture as well. Its not bad that we disagree so much is how we disagree with each other.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/14 00:23:01
ScarletRose wrote: Lol, so cited sources vs. "it's all fake news". Yep that pretty much sums up US politics in a nutshell
the issue with cited sources is that one side or the other may not recognize the legitimacy of said source. The leaning of the source is often used to discredit or disregard and both sides do it. If you were to cite say, Forbes, CNN, and Fox, and I cited The Enquirer, NY Times and CBS, and we had different opinions on something, all of those sources are cited, but not all of them would be taken as equals (some certainly shouldn't be).
ScarletRose wrote: Lol, so cited sources vs. "it's all fake news". Yep that pretty much sums up US politics in a nutshell
Yep. As a country we've forgotten how to assess facts that run contrary to our political biases, and how to disagree in a civilized manner, and the very concept that someone else can honorably hold a different opinion.
Unless we get past it, it's going to destroy the country.
ScarletRose wrote: Lol, so cited sources vs. "it's all fake news". Yep that pretty much sums up US politics in a nutshell
the issue with cited sources is that one side or the other may not recognize the legitimacy of said source. The leaning of the source is often used to discredit or disregard and both sides do it. If you were to cite say, Forbes, CNN, and Fox, and I cited The Enquirer, NY Times and CBS, and we had different opinions on something, all of those sources are cited, but not all of them would be taken as equals (some certainly shouldn't be).
Of course, neither side accepts as valid the sources the other uses, primarily because the sources in question do not validate their political beliefs regardless of how an independent source would rate the accuracy of the data. I've been told the Center for Disease Control is has a vast political bias because the data it reports on a particular political subject are in direct conflict with the beliefs of a political party.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/05/14 00:46:10
ScarletRose wrote: Lol, so cited sources vs. "it's all fake news". Yep that pretty much sums up US politics in a nutshell
Yep. As a country we've forgotten how to assess facts that run contrary to our political biases, and how to disagree in a civilized manner, and the very concept that someone else can honorably hold a different opinion.
Unless we get past it, it's going to destroy the country.
Makes you wonder if we are way past that. Consider how vehemently we are here and we can at least all claim to have at least our hobby in common. I absolutely loathe the majority of the folks here and most outside eyes would consider us all part of one gaming community.
Health outcomes don’t depend on a news source, and by every measure the US has worse outcomes and higher cost than the vast majority of Western healthcare systems.
ScarletRose wrote: Lol, so cited sources vs. "it's all fake news". Yep that pretty much sums up US politics in a nutshell
Yep. As a country we've forgotten how to assess facts that run contrary to our political biases, and how to disagree in a civilized manner, and the very concept that someone else can honorably hold a different opinion.
Unless we get past it, it's going to destroy the country.
Makes you wonder if we are way past that. Consider how vehemently we are here and we can at least all claim to have at least our hobby in common. I absolutely loathe the majority of the folks here and most outside eyes would consider us all part of one gaming community.
If we are past reconciliation, then there will be a bloodbath in America, millions will die, and I would expect China to take action to make sure America never recovers, militarily or economically.
Perhaps we might try to work together despite our mutual dislike, to avoid that outcome? Compromise is not a dirty word. Even the Republican Saint Ronald Reagan believed on compromise to accomplish things.
d-usa wrote: Health outcomes don’t depend on a news source, and by every measure the US has worse outcomes and higher cost than the vast majority of Western healthcare systems.
I dont agree with you, according to forbes you are right, according to healthsystemtracker.org you are wrong.
ScarletRose wrote: Lol, so cited sources vs. "it's all fake news". Yep that pretty much sums up US politics in a nutshell
Yep. As a country we've forgotten how to assess facts that run contrary to our political biases, and how to disagree in a civilized manner, and the very concept that someone else can honorably hold a different opinion.
Unless we get past it, it's going to destroy the country.
Makes you wonder if we are way past that. Consider how vehemently we are here and we can at least all claim to have at least our hobby in common. I absolutely loathe the majority of the folks here and most outside eyes would consider us all part of one gaming community.
If we are past reconciliation, then there will be a bloodbath in America, millions will die, and I would expect China to take action to make sure America never recovers, militarily or economically.
Perhaps we might try to work together despite our mutual dislike, to avoid that outcome? Compromise is not a dirty word. Even the Republican Saint Ronald Reagan believed on compromise to accomplish things.
Well the one-two punch their is our respective tribes are not set up to do that. We punish politicions who compromise at the polls and our primaries insure the nuttiest candidate on each side wins. I do not believe for a second that Jim Webb or Lincoln Chaffee were bad candidates nor were John Kasich and Rick Perry. Boehner was hounded out of office and Pelosi seems next.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Left and Right, pretty much hate one another.
Modern-day politics is just a giant game of soccer (that's football you European heathens!) with everyone falling down pretending to be hurt.
Throwing your hands up in exasperation and saying half the nation hates the other half just because of their chosen tribe is one of the most embarrassing things I have seen posted here as an American.
That is certainly not true and it is really only the people who live and die by their party, which is sadly more people than it should be.
Furthermore, if you think you deserve to be seen faster in an ER and the staff don't think so, maybe you should trust their expertise. "But it could have been a blood clot!" Well it wasn't, but if you want to play that game. We can. They could have had multiple codes going off in the ER, had a few nurses assaulted by patients, and decided to take a breather on their 8-12 hour shift before getting to you. Why you ask? Because they are human, deserve it, and you only had a boo boo on your knee. Stop whining, take the pain, and move on.
Vulcan wrote: Which pretty much sums up the health care debate in America. One side demonstrates how much less it costs in socialist health care systems, and the other side throws their hands and says they don't care, it's DA EBIL SOCIALIZM!!!!!1!1!
Left and Right, pretty much hate one another.
Modern-day politics is just a giant game of soccer (that's football you European heathens!) with everyone falling down pretending to be hurt.
Throwing your hands up in exasperation and saying half the nation hates the other half just because of their chosen tribe is one of the most embarrassing things I have seen posted here as an American.
That is certainly not true and it is really only the people who live and die by their party, which is sadly more people than it should be.
Furthermore, if you think you deserve to be seen faster in an ER and the staff don't think so, maybe you should trust their expertise. "But it could have been a blood clot!" Well it wasn't, but if you want to play that game. We can. They could have had multiple codes going off in the ER, had a few nurses assaulted by patients, and decided to take a breather on their 8-12 hour shift before getting to you. Why you ask? Because they are human, deserve it, and you only had a boo boo on your knee. Stop whining, take the pain, and move on.
sure hope it happens to you. congrats on being part of the problem! you are not even worth actual explanation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/14 01:26:12
d-usa wrote: Health outcomes don’t depend on a news source, and by every measure the US has worse outcomes and higher cost than the vast majority of Western healthcare systems.
I dont agree with you, according to forbes you are right, according to healthsystemtracker.org you are wrong.
Inconsistent or unavailable data and imperfect metrics make it difficult to firmly judge system-wide health quality in the U.S., but a review of the data we do have suggests that the system is improving across each of these dimensions, though it continues to lag behind comparably wealthy and sizable countries in many respects.
Bench-marking U.S. quality measures against those of similarly large and wealthy countries is one way to assess how successful the U.S. has been at improving care for its population, and to learn from systems that often produce better outcomes. The OECD has compiled data on dozens of outcomes and process measures. Across a number of these measures, the U.S. lags behind similarly wealthy OECD countries (those that are similarly large and wealthy based on GDP and GDP per capita).In some cases, such as the rates of all-cause mortality, premature death, death amenable to healthcare, and disease burden, the U.S. is also not improving as quickly as other countries, which means the gap is growing.
A BIG part of the problem is the one I mentioned back in the beginning of the thread. Having 40% of the voters turn out to actually vote is a HUGE turnout in America. The other 60% never even bothers to show up.
If they all got together behind one candidate, they could put him in office hands down. Even a Green or Libertarian.
Of the people who DO vote, 35-40% will ALWAYS vote Democrat, and another 35-40% will ALWAYS vote Republican. Even if the candidate is Genghis Khan on a 'Raze America - to the ground!' platform, so long as the correct letter is next to his name they'd vote for him. So its only the remaining 20-30% who actually choose who wins.
Even there it's often the choice between awful, and somehow even worse than that. That's because, as thekingofkings mentions, the primaries pander to the extreme because that's how you get elected under American primary rules. Which tells me that it's time to change the primary rules because this way is no longer working.
Perhaps the solution is to allow voters not registered with a party to vote in ALL party primaries? After all, independents (small i independents, not to be confused with members of the Independent party) might vote for ANY party's candidates; shouldn't they have a say in who those candidates ARE?
As for partisan slants on these healthcare stats: I’ve had the pleasure of having the current Republican Appointed Surgeon General Vice-Admiral Adams speak to my commissioning class. He stressed all these facts to us, and that he tasks all of us serving under him to do our part to research solutions and take actions to improve these statistics.
"by every measure the US has worse outcomes and higher cost than the vast majority of Western healthcare systems"
"Five-year survival rates for certain cancers are higher in the U.S. than in comparable countries"
"Post-op sepsis are better in the U.S. than in some comparable countries, but not as low as others"
by direct quotes, the US does not have worse outcomes and higher costs than the vast majority, it is superior to them in the two categories I put in there. according to Forbes we are worse in both categories. So source does matter.
hate one another.
