When US health care is so good, why are there such poor health figures?

Question

Right, I know this is to be a contentious question, but please do not take offence. I ask this as I live in a country where health care is provided to all, and we can, if we choose, opt for private health care as well.

I DO NOT MEAN TO CAUSE ANY OFFENCE.

The USA has, for those who can afford it, and for those whose insurance pays out, one of the best health care systems in the world. But, life expectancy figures are amongst the lowest in the western world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy
The average person is more likely to live longer in Puerto Rico, Costa Rica and even Cuba than they are in the USA. Not by much, but still, the USA is the richest and most powerful country in the world, whereas Cuba, Costa Rica and Puerto Rico are no where near as wealthy. Is this something that should be dealt with, and what are the reasons for this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

Answer 1

The world health organization ranks the comparative health of people around the world.

The US comes in 36th. The US health care system is run for the benefit of insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. Both of these categories do very well indeed. It is only the citizens who suffer and die.

Go to Canada, or Germany or Switzerland or France or Norway or Sweden or Thailand or India or Costa Rica and you will find the hospitals filled with US citizens who have gone there for medical treatment because the care they need, often life saving care, is unaffordable in the US.

The infant mortality rate in the US is higher than the infant mortality rate in Italy. It is higher than the infant mortality rate in Argentina and in America's five largest cities, the infant mortality rate is higher than in India.

But the right wing, the religious right, insists that all of this unnecessary pain suffering and death is preferable to "socialized medicine." Do they not realize that socialized medicine is what we have now, with big insurance and big pharma doing the "socializing?"

Answer 2

I'm not sure. Ok, you can say that mortality rates are counted differently and that murders are higher (which brings up a whole different debate re gun laws) but you also can't totally discredit the universal healthcare in other countries. It is a part of the equation. I would guess that inequalities in access based on economic circumstances and racial background (another issue) contribute. With universal healthcare also comes preventative medicine, yearly checkups, lifestyle coaching, etc. which would address the obesity and other lifestyle issues prevalent in the US so the amount that the US spends on healthcare would likely decrease with universal healthcare. And, universal healthcare can be accomplished without converting to 'communism' as some insist will happen.
Most and least friendly countries to small biz:

Rank Country FSB Score
1 New Zealand 2.03
2 United States 2.01
3 Canada 1.99
4 Australia 1.93
5 Singapore 1.88
6 Hong Kong, China 1.86
7 United Kingdom 1.85
8 Ireland 1.85
9 Denmark 1.75
10 Iceland 1.75

Published on Sunday, August 12, 2007 by The Associated Press

Private health care is available in most of these countries as well. And employers can spend money on benefits to their employees such as fitness memberships rather than healthcare benefits.

I think that it has more to do with the mentality of the US public and their fear of government involvement (based on past experience with their government?) and their worry that it will take more money out of their pockets (as wrong as this might be) that holds them back from universal healthcare.

But, as far as total health figures, universal healthcare is only one of the contributing factors so, in order to improve, changes to several areas of the US culture would likely have to happen.

Answer 3

Some folks would swear the sun rose in the south if their ideology required it. If you told them Brazil was bigger than the US they would send the FBI after you. The simplest checking shows that Western Democracies do best who are least held back by an antigovernment right wing.

Canada and the UK are better off than the US, but worse off than the rest of Western Europe, particularly Scandanavia and Iceland. Eating habits may have some influence on length of life, but only concern for others brings prenatal care that brings healthy kids and low infant death rates.

Google has a tool to look at country statistics and is able to show change over time as well. It is one thing to play blame the victim for their poor health, but when you can show changes in the same country, timed to a change in government policy it is hard to say that it is a lifestyle issue.

Answer 4

Probably not. If this were a socialist country, more would be going toward actual services rather than to the mega rich financiers and defense contractors. Instead we just have steal from the poor & middle class, and give to the rich. Then give a little fraction to the poor to give the appearance of doing something for them. But we often don't give enough credit to our fellow citizens - we always think that we are "in the know" and everyone else is an idiot politically. More people are informed than we think. At least I like to hope so...

Answer 5

All this stuff about lifestyle is very true- Americans are the fattest and laziest people in the world! But only to an extent. You can't tell me that accounts for the entire discrepancy. Of course there are people without insurance who are not getting treated for things. And there are people without insurance who avoid going to the doctors when they have symptoms because they are worried about the bill, only to find out they've left it far too late.

Many Americans are so obsessed with the notion that they will not pay for anyone else's anything, that they can't even see the benefits for themselves in universal health care. Without the insurance companies taking their cut it would be much cheaper. Most middle class American families would pay LESS for health care this way- and still have enough left over to get private insurance top-ups. The cost of private insurance is much lower when there is an NHS because it is only for hospitalisation and to skip waiting lists.

The people who would do badly out of this are the ones so rich the SS increases would amount to more than they currently pay for themselves and their families (which can be anything up to $1000 a month!) Still, business owners would benefit from not having to subsidise insurance for their employees- so not everyone rich would do badly out this.

I think some people just need to get over their obsession with not paying for other people- when the majority of people would save money, plus everyone would benefit, it seems reasonable enough to me.

Answer 6

The World Health Organization judged a country's quality of health care on life expectancy. But that's a lousy measure of a health-care system. Many things that cause premature death have nothing do with medical care. America has far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. That's not a health-care problem. Our homicide rate is 10 times higher than in the U.K., eight times higher than in France, and five times greater than in Canada also, not a health care problem. When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation.

These are the reasons you seek.

.

Answer 7

Lets play the statistics game.
1) the rating system used detracts half the points for not having socialized health care.
2) Infant death statistics in other countries do not count prebirth or death within the first few days of birth. The U.S. does.
3) the U.S. is a nation of indulgence. People in third world countries are less likely to die in car accidents or other accidents common to the U.S.. Car accidents are the leading cause of death in the U.S. and this is factored into life expectancy.
4) The U.S. actually keeps records! does Costa Rica?

Answer 8

Several people have mentioned before, it is our lifestyle. We are an obese nation. That in itself creates a multitude of problems. Our statistics are still suffering from the smokers and substance abusers. Even people who are "thin" don't exercise properly. And everyone's diet will sucks. All of this adds to or takes away from our longevity.

There are several comments on how the government should take care of its people. Why do people want the government to do what the people aren't doing? Why should the government pay for a person's health care when they do not take care of themselves? Most of the people who cannot afford health care carry excess weight, don't exercise properly (should the government pay the bill for membership to a gym also), and from my own personal observations in my workplace, they smoke, drink, and sometimes are into substance abuse. In other words, why should the government (read into this taxpayers) pay for people who really don't give a dang about their bodies?

Answer 9

I believe the US falls behind in health care not because of the system we have but the lifestyles we lead.

Americans are wealthier then most of our European counterparts. The wealth comes at a cost we work longer hours to obtain that wealth. With that comes stress and poor diets.

There is no easy solution, do we tank our economy by working less. Do we change our diet and exercise habits. How do we get the entire population to do it? There are no easy answers

Answer 10

A large part of the problem is, that many Americans are so cought up in the supossed "Free Enterprise" society that they do not yet see the benefits of national healthcare.

I will get thumbs down galore for this, but I beleive that the natural resources of a country should in part be used for the welfare of its citizens, and not just so someone can make a profit.

A Canadian.