> Tim Cook wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > ivhalpc wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I wonder how this is all going to end and I fear it will end badly as
> > > in Nationalized medicine in the US
> >
> > Would that truly be a bad thing? I'm not sure how a transition would
> > work but answer these questions:
> The transition is already underway with Medicare and Medicaid, both of which
> are about to go bankrupt in the US.
Sorry for my ignorance, but how can govt-funded health insurance/payment
schemes "go bankrupt"?
> > 1) What western country spends the largest portion (by a wide margin) of
> > GDP on healthcare?
> This, by itself, doesn't mean that healthcare in the US is bad. It
> might mean the opposite.
Despite having one of the highest per-capita spends on healthcare in the
world, the US ranks in the bottom half (and often right at the bottom)
of all OECD countries on just about every health and health outcome
measure, on a population basis. Sure, for wealthier people in the US who
can afford good health insurance, health outcomes are excellent, but
those people represent about 50% of the total population. The rest of
the population have really very bad outcomes, so the overall results are
remarkably poor given the overall expenditure. And even amongst the
insured, the quality and nature of the care is very patchy, due to the
incredibly fragmented nature of the US healthcare system.
> > 2) What western country has the largest percentage of citizens without
> > healthcare?
> Do you have any idea what the percentage of citizens in the US is
> without healthcare
> coverage? The main stream media and some politicos grossly
> misrepresent this
> number. The fact is that healthcare for those that need it in the US
> can't be denied.
> The type of coverage isn't the same for everyone, but essentially
> everyone has coverage
> of some sort. People may not have signed up for it, but, in fact, may
> have coverage.
> Take a look at the sign in every ER room in America, e.g.
It may be that acute, emergency care is mostly available to everyone in
the US (but I constantly hear horror stories of denied or badly
truncated emergency care in the US due to lack of insurance or cash,
stories which you never hear here in Australia or in the UK - they are
just inconceivable).
However, it is lack of access to ongoing, routine medical care for
poorer people in the US which is the problem. It may be that even the
struggling single parent unskilled casual worker in the US can have
their myocardial infarct treated at an ER, but it would have been better
if they had had free or subsidised access to regular care by a family
physician or community clinic for the decade before that, as well as
access to subsidised antihypertensive and cholesterol lowering drugs
instead of paying the full, ridiculous inflated US market prices for
such medications.
Tim C
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "openhealth" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
