The Great Scottish FREEEEEEEEEDOOOMMMMM!!!!1!!! vote

[Dauphin]

There was a great article on the BBC's webpage a while back which unironically celebrated the fact that the UK's NHS was better in every way to US healthcare except in patient outcomes. Jaguar had it, I can't find it at the moment.

Shame. I would like to know the actual statistical bases.

For example, is it based only on patients outcomes - for example, if the poor and uninsured don't get treated, are they included in the stats? Are stats based on survival rates, where the U.S. system promotes more 'speculative' testing at an earlier stage before you even have systems - giving a better survival rate (you are more likely to survive a year after diagnosis, regardless of any treatment) but not necessarily a better mortality rate (you still die, you were just diagnosed earlier). Etc.

[DinoDoc]

DD's and Reg crusade against the less fortunate

If I were actually making a substantive attack on the program, I'd point out the results of the Oregon Medicaid health experiment rather than simply questioning how people can afford to get pain meds repeatedly on social assistance programs rather than simply go to a dentist.

[Dinner]

Can you please link to what you are talking about?

[Hauldren Collider]

Lack of dental care can lead to a number of other health problems. Chronically untreated caries and abscesses are clearly related to cardiovascular disease. It can aggravate Migraines and TMJ disorders. People who lack access to dental care abuse the medical care system as they seek pain medication. The chronic pain may lead to depression.

Irrelevant. It's not risk.

[DinoDoc]

@ Oerdin: http://www.nber.org/oregon/

[regexcellent]

Shame. I would like to know the actual statistical bases.

For example, is it based only on patients outcomes - for example, if the poor and uninsured don't get treated, are they included in the stats? Are stats based on survival rates, where the U.S. system promotes more 'speculative' testing at an earlier stage before you even have systems - giving a better survival rate (you are more likely to survive a year after diagnosis, regardless of any treatment) but not necessarily a better mortality rate (you still die, you were just diagnosed earlier). Etc.

Sure, I'll try to find out if Jaguar still has it. Those are all good points.

[Ben Kenobi]

I believe, but I am not certain, that the bulk of the difference has to do with the timeliness of treatment. It's not just about speculative care before, but rather, that patients are more likely to receive prompt care in the United States, which would naturally result in greater survival rates.

Also, America tends to have better and more up to date equipment.

[kentonio]

Patients are not always more likely to receive timely care, because many Americans are worried about being covered financially for their care so avoid visiting doctors unless an ailment becomes severe. As has been said many times, if you have amazing coverage then US healthcare is great, but vast numbers of people don't and that's always going to trash your overall outcomes. Despite the fact you pay so, so much more for healthcare than the rest of the world.

[Proteus_MST]

In germany going twice a year to a checkup at your dentist is actually rewarded by the health insurance agencies, by getting more money for dental protheses, when they become necessary later in your life.

It is cheaper for the health insurance agencies to have you go to a dental checkup twice a year (and have any problems (like Karies) get detected in time) than to have you go only when you have massive problems with your teeth (which may make major dental surgeries necessary)

[Bereta_Eder]

Or if you come down with an abscess or something.

There are a lot of things wrong with American health care. But I don't know why Bereta's friend would be paying 1,000 dollars a month for insurance. I pay 60.

From what I remember she's very good at her field (bio-engineering IIRC) and will get paid around 15.000- 20.000 a month (go USA ) so 1.000 is really not that much considering her salary. So it's not something that will avert her from going. Still it made an impression when I heard the amount.

[Dauphin]

I believe, but I am not certain, that the bulk of the difference has to do with the timeliness of treatment. It's not just about speculative care before, but rather, that patients are more likely to receive prompt care in the United States, which would naturally result in greater survival rates.

Also, America tends to have better and more up to date equipment.

What difference? No one has presented any facts and most rankings I have seen in the past have the U.S. a long way behind the UK and other European nations.

[kentonio]

What difference? No one has presented any facts and most rankings I have seen in the past have the U.S. a long way behind the UK and other European nations.

The exception being cancer recovery rates IIRC, where America does really well.

[Dauphin]

The exception being cancer recovery rates IIRC, where America does really well.

Statistically it may be true, but this may speak to the issue of overdiagnosis. For example, slow and non-progressive cancers are detected and included in the U.S. data but not in (e.g.) UK data. The better recovery rate is therefore an artefact of statistics, and not efficacy of treatment.

See:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdiagnosis

[Dinner]

The exception being cancer recovery rates IIRC, where America does really well.

Which, ironically, was due to the government mandating early screening as part of any insurance plan way back in 1993 as it was one of Hillary Clinton's pet issue's. Btw virtually all countries now do the same and so the survival rates are now virtually identical. This is why the right wing liars always quoted decade old figures during the health care debate back in 2009. They were deliberately cherry picking data after the US government mandated the early screening but before other countries did the same then failed to mention that by the mid 2000's the US' s lead was totally gone. The right wing also lied and claimed it was a example of private industry providing better results when it was ENTIRELY due to a big government unfunded mandate which private insurance companies did everything in their power to try to prevent. If anything it was an example of how government regulations could improve health care outcomes despite the objections of private industry. FACT!

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Patients are not always more likely to receive timely care, because many Americans are worried about being covered financially for their care so avoid visiting doctors unless an ailment becomes severe. As has been said many times, if you have amazing coverage then US healthcare is great, but vast numbers of people don't and that's always going to trash your overall outcomes. Despite the fact you pay so, so much more for healthcare than the rest of the world.

In the terms of cost:

Before his three-hour neck surgery for herniated disks in December, Peter Drier, 37, signed a pile of consent forms. A bank technology manager who had researched his insurance coverage, Mr. Drier was prepared when the bills started arriving: $56,000 from Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan, $4,300 from the anesthesiologist and even $133,000 from his orthopedist, who he knew would accept a fraction of that fee.

He was blindsided, though, by a bill of about $117,000 from an “assistant surgeon,” a Queens-based neurosurgeon whom Mr. Drier did not recall meeting.

“I thought I understood the risks,” Mr. Drier, who lives in New York City, said later. “But this was just so wrong — I had no choice and no negotiating power.”

Third world country. (in this respect)