Does America have the world's best health care?

[HisHighnessDog]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

You answered my question. Health care is provided by doctors who don't charge anything at hospitals that have a fairy who provides everything they need in order to operate. It really is "free" !

Could you get Mary Poppins to come to the US so it won't cost us anything? :rolleyes:

Raz,

I lived in Japan, Korea, Sweden and France over a period of ~8 years. I can attest to the quality of, and short-to-zero waiting times for, excellent health care in all four. My total tax burden in any of those countries was about the same as in the US.

People who have never lived outside their country of origin often have a wildly distorted view of what is possible and at what cost. Equally, they have wildly distorted view of their home nation's uniqueness. A few times when I was in Korea, I'd be chatting with a local -comparing observations about the US and Korea, and the local would say "We have four seasons!"... I assume they thought that was something really unique about Korea:-) It still cracks me up.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

I get your point, *T*.
I hope nero3 gets mine.

Nothing is "free".

When you are in the emergency room dying, would you like the doctor to come to your bed and ask you: "What is a new kidney worth to you, sir; the last bid I have on a kidney was $160,000 on the commodity market?"

Yes, nothing is free, but we can all pay for national healthcare through higher taxes. That is the fair way to do it, and that is the civilized and humane way to do it.... But ideally, government spending in other areas, for such things as prisons, the drug war, space shuttles, Reagan's star wars, and other military waste could be cut too.

[Raz]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

Raz,

I've been a subscriber to the Economist since 1995. It is a relentlessly conservative magazine. Their 160th anniversary special issue was -from front page to last- an homage to free markets. It has been conservative for all 160 years. Your confusion derives from the fact that its editors acknowledge more than one side to an argument.

Regarding our spectacularly low-value health care industry: I am a healthy 44 year old male. Last year, I walked into George Washington University Hospital and tried to get a refill on a $12 medication. First, I was required to have my blood pressure and heart rate checked (even though neither had anything to do with my condition), for which I was charged $180. I was then told that, without insurance, the appointment cost to actually see the doctor and get a prescription was "$450-$650". Yes, you read that right: $450-$650 to see a doctor to get a routine $12 prescription refill.

I've only been reading it since February. (My subscription was a Christmas gift.) That's not long enough to gather an accurate description of the editorial bent or the little accents and nuances of the writers of various articles, so I'll take your word for it, your Highness. (Are you your dogs' liege or his vassal?)

Here's my problem: most people in the United States don't even know what true Conservatism is. George W. Dumbass was NOT a Conservative. There is nothing Conservative about reckless Federal spending, education takeover by the Feds, maintaining a leftover Cold War empire, much less waging an aggressive war and "nation building", which in 2000 the lying jackass said he would never do.
And this is compounded by the fact that he not only continued Clinton's insanity of expanding NATO, but gave Putin the finger after Putin stuck his neck out for us in 2002 against the wishes of the Russian military!! We should have pulled out of NATO in 1993!!!
Reagan wanted to be a true Conservative but the statist rot was so embedded by the early 1980s (think "Tip" O'Neil and the Democrats) that he was forced to compromise much of his leanings. Reagan also made some big mistakes.

We haven't had a real Conservative since Eisenhower and he made one HUGE mistake. That mistake was called Earl Warren.

Now that I've had that cathartic experience at your expense, your Highness, let me return to the subject of American Healthcare.
I know what you're relaying is a true experience, and regardless of the reason or necessity for such charges, they speak volumes about a very dysfunctional system. I know that changes must be made - but change for the sake of change is a very poor methodology.
We need change that is both real and sensible. I don't like the insurance industry and I'm old enough to remember when doctors made very good money but weren't richer than most oilmen. Yet I don't want legislation written almost entirely by the likes of Ted Kennedy and Henry Waxman. The idea that anything has to be better than what we have now is a fallacy. That's probably true to some extent for the tax eaters, but more than half of the people in this country would not agree.

I believe the Republicans will make another HUGE mistake if they attempt only the obstructionist route. They could lose big-time politically, but only to a sensible Democratic bill. Wiping out all private insurance would likely please MulaMan and the Loonie Left which makes up the ideological core of the Democratic Party, but it's just not going to sell to a majority of the American population.

Why can't some of these political whores..., er, congresspeople, listen to ideas from someone like Ron Paul?
I'm likely waiting and hoping in vain.

[Raz]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

When you are in the emergency room dying, would you like the doctor to come to your bed and ask you: "What is a new kidney worth to you, sir; the last bid I have on a kidney was $160,000 on the commodity market?"

Yes, nothing is free, but we can all pay for national healthcare through higher taxes. That is the fair way to do it, and that is the civilized and humane way to do it.... But ideally, government spending in other areas, for such things as prisons, the drug war, space shuttles, Reagan's star wars, and other military waste could be cut too.

Wow, Steve. Are you back on your medication? You sound like a normal, sensible human being with whom one could engage in rational conversation! (Sorry for the smart-ass ribbing - I just couldn't resist! )

I'm only idealogical when it comes to the plain meaning of the US Constitution as intended by the Founders. When we have a system as screwed up as healthcare and its related industries (think insurance) the government must provide the impetus for sensible change.
I'm not opposed to that. But I am opposed to taking approximately 17% of the private economy and placing it into a government agency - either by increments or in one fell swoop. That's my problem with the current bill.

I've also posted on this subject in a recent response to HisHighnessDog.

[nero3]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

I get your point, *T*.
I hope nero3 gets mine.

Nothing is "free".

As one of those who benefit the least from the services from all the taxes here I certainly get your point, but if it's not spent on health care it will be burned on something else. Just look at the stupid Wars the US is engaged in. I get very provoked when billionaires here move to swiss or other countries to save a few bucks of tax, trying to avoid giving back to the country that gave them the opportunities to become what they are. In my opinion, if they moved and refuse to pay tax, they should loose access to the Norway. They want to live her, just not on paper, to #¤#/ with those billionaires. If the tax base is built down, I suspect that there will be a more antisocial society. In the US it worked as long as you had the ongoing increase in private debt, when that bubble is over, you need higher taxes to support the higher government spending that is needed to escape the deflationary hole.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

Raz,

I've been a subscriber to the Economist since 1995. It is a relentlessly conservative magazine. Their 160th anniversary special issue was -from front page to last- an homage to free markets. It has been conservative for all 160 years. Your confusion derives from the fact that its editors acknowledge more than one side to an argument.

Regarding our spectacularly low-value health care industry: I am a healthy 44 year old male. Last year, I walked into George Washington University Hospital and tried to get a refill on a $12 medication. First, I was required to have my blood pressure and heart rate checked (even though neither had anything to do with my condition), for which I was charged $180. I was then told that, without insurance, the appointment cost to actually see the doctor and get a prescription was "$450-$650". Yes, you read that right: $450-$650 to see a doctor to get a routine $12 prescription refill.

I don't know what kind of conclusions one can draw from anecdotes, but I find them as interesting posts, and this one is a good one to my estimate.

One point you note is the toll-taker effect involving some prescription medicines. Despite the possibility of your or anyone paying what it was quoted to cost you for your prescription, for that amount of money the value of the expense would approach nil to you or to an insurance company even if it was in a contract to get the service for less. Sure it is possible that a visit might have turned up a new life-threatening illness, but the odds are against it I believe.

Take the $450 quote and $180 for getting your pulse and BP checked. With an insurance that might be reduced to ~two-thirds allowable at their paying 80% (after deductible is met) with the rest to you, which still approaches the ridiculous. With Medicare it might be reduced to 25% (that is the cost my "toll" for seeing MD now annually for continuing prescription for hypertension). So what should be the actual charge to all-comers? My guess is that at tops 50% of $630, and that cost still on average outweighs the value of the time spent and intellectual expenditure by the doctor if things were as you described, and there would be exceptions no doubt.

The other point is pitty the poor son-of-bitch who doesn't have insurance. Those types really get soaked by the current system, they would get to pay the total toll of $630, and probably those without insurance are the least capable of paying that.

One of my anecdotes and my considerable contemplation of it:

Checking my own BP, saw it high. Sought out MD. Read his diploma, his certificates of residency, and his certficate of being a diplomate of the internal medicine board, and I still had no serious confidence in his qualification, but that is just me. Beside BP, I also pointed out some long standing toenail fungus and my history of being a hepatitis B carrier--which means I was infected with hepatitis B, and it was documented then going back to at least 27 years. Despite being a hep-B carrier I have never had documented decreased liver function, and I quit drinking and taking tylenol years ago because of their tendancies to badger one's liver. The internist prescribed an antihypertensive and an anti-nail fungus medication, and told me to start the antifungal once the tests for liver function were reported back to him. Nurse called and said liver function tests okay, so I could take the antifungal medication, which would have cost at the time $1700 [Sporanox] at Walmart for twelve weeks of it (I think I am recalling that correctly). An alternative drug with what I think is similar efficacy would have been$1180 [Lamisil]for same period. Medicare I don't believe covered either.

Because of the internist's nonchalance about my liver, as I took his demeanor, I did some reading on the antifungal he prescribed, and as is known and as I knew, this shit can kill a liver and there is no prediction as to whom such devastation might occur. Additionally, in this instance the antifungal he prescribed, Sporanox, had a known conflict with simultaneous administration of the antihypertensive, Norvasc. Lamisil was safe in simultaneous use with Norvasc. I think I am correct in the internist's assessment that if my liver function tests were not abnormal, then all systems were go, or antifungus medication was likely not to cause me serious complications. Perhaps most people reading this would go ahead and take the Sporanox. I didn't.

I was fortunate, I guess, to have trained with a guy who went on to train in gastroenterology and then subspecialize in hepatology (liver-stuff). I called and just discussed possibly taking Sporanox or Lamisil, and I had seen this same liver-guy some years before just to get a serious opinion about my future as a hep-B carrier. His opinion, which didn't/doesn't have to be correct, was that he would not take the stuff for the nail fungus in my case and he would not take it himself, though his liver was apparently perfectly okay.

I've considered this from the internist's point of view (not that I am necessarily capable of doing that). Forget the conflict of medication and just focus on the Sporanox, nail fungus drug. What happens to him if this shit starts killing my liver. I see him, he opines, and charges me something more. If I get worse, he sends me on to a gastroenterologist, hopefully a hepatologist, who charges me, actually Medicare, and may or may not be able to do anything except see me through my dying days, or try to get me on a liver-transplant list. As I see things, if I get damaged by the drug, it is only I who suffers the consequence, and any care I receive as a result of the drug complication only leads to more intervention and income to those who may or might not be able to actually do anything to help me.

This is not a good system, for patients or doctors. I saw another MD for my BP and I still have my toenail fungus and a liver functioning so far without evidence of failure, though I may still someday get liver cancer, the longterm effect of being a hep-B carrier.

[Raz]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

Thanks for posting this, Jim. I hope you'll wade in with more info and opinion about how to fix this healthcare mess we have.
I'm a Paleoconservative - the real thing - and I don't like government involvement in the economy beyond that of a referree at a basketball game. But I don't think a totally free market approach can work for us when shopping for healthcare as though we were buying clothes or an automobile.

About eight years ago my family physician suggested that he might want to put me on a statin drug because my total cholesteral level was above 250. I phoned a college friend who has an ob/gyn practice to ask his opinion. Although he has no experience with hepatic issues, he's very smart (graduated undergraduate in Chemistry with a 4.00 GPA and a minor in Math) and he reads a lot. He asked me what my ratio was and immediately said the guy was either crazy or getting a kickback from his pharmaceutical rep! He said he wouldn't even consider a statin drug unless his ratio was bad and his total cholesteral was consistently north of 400.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

Thanks for posting this, Jim. I hope you'll wade in with more info and opinion about how to fix this healthcare mess we have.
I'm a Paleoconservative - the real thing - and I don't like government involvement in the economy beyond that of a referree at a basketball game. But I don't think a totally free market approach can work for us when shopping for healthcare as though we were buying clothes or an automobile.

About eight years ago my family physician suggested that he might want to put me on a statin drug because my total cholesteral level was above 250. I phoned a college friend who has an ob/gyn practice to ask his opinion. Although he has no experience with hepatic issues, he's very smart (graduated undergraduate in Chemistry with a 4.00 GPA and a minor in Math) and he reads a lot. He asked me what my ratio was and immediately said the guy was either crazy or getting a kickback from his pharmaceutical rep! He said he wouldn't even consider a statin drug unless his ratio was bad and his total cholesteral was consistently north of 400.

Raz, one thing your overall post may show is the potential value of second opinions even in issues not involving surgery. The problem with different second opinions is that it leaves one not knowing which one might have been closest to correct. Odd are probably that we all tend to accept the one from the person we trust the most, which might or might not still be the best thing.

Medicine is complicated and probably grows moreso each day. I envy no one who is serious about trying to practice it at a high level of what appears to be that.

Asking me to speculate on what might be the answer or fix is akin to my spending time thinking about what I'd do if I won a mega-lotto. I won't win one, and I don't think about what would be its effect on my life. What I think about medicine and the US delivery of it will make zero difference

Assuming I had King-of-the-US status tomorrow, I would do the following.

I would put all physicians on a salary. Some would see that as suffering and unfair, but then what is some portion of 1M or so guys/girls suffering to some degree compared to 45M or so suffering to some degree from not having healthcare access without facing financial devastation in some cases or worse the consequence of untreated treatable diseases.

I would make legal actions as they now exist by patients and their lawyers illegal, and replace what might represent malpractice awards with a table of allowances for various injuries that could be assessed by panels of judges comprised of lay and professional people. It would be a worthy goal to have a healthcare provider to be on the side of the patient if his/her care did result in harm to the patient, and such could only exist if fear is removed from the provider's side of the equation regarding the smear to reputation of malpractice and the cost of insurance to provide for its possiblity. In my opinion, any doctor who would state he never did anything in practice that was counter to a patient's best interest is likely lying or hasn't practiced but a very short period of time.

Removal of the malpractice consequences I believe would wipe out a lot of CYA testing and further referrals from one doctor to another and the associated costs done mainly as part of CYA "medical care."

I would put all doctors in multispecialty clinics and make them consult one another as part of their jobs over patients presenting problems when there is real doubt as to what is going on with the patient rather than the present time-consuming and expense-generating method of having the patient go from one specialist to another.

Though I have recently half-assedly paid attention to at least a head-line assertion that computerization of algorithms to determine the most statistcally effective and cost effective measure for pursuit of certain problems cannot work, or cannot yet work, I would endeavor to get such a system to work.

I would pay off all educational debts for medical school and dental schools and subsequently use national testing to determine who is qualified to enter the health professions as providers, and offer them education at governmental and taxpayer expense. I would expand the use of auxillaries in medicine and dentistry, again all in a mutispecialty setting.

I would make all hospitals not for profit institutions. I would stop all advertising of medications, and I would stop this bullshit of drug companies going from an Ambien for sleep to producing Ambien-CR in order to continue the patent protection. I would make all medication be dispensed in a tamper-proof method, so that any drugs not used could be returned to the pharmacy and re-issued.

I would absolutely do away with private health insurance and all that goes along with it, advertising, and efforts at denial of benefits. A single payer medicare type system would be the only thing available. Those left unemployed from the insurance business could seek employment as orderlies emptying bedpans until something else more lucrative developed for job opportunities.

I would develop a limitation of what could be spent by the system on certain lethal diseases. As has been suggested elsewhere here somewhere, if one is 65 or so and has lung cancer with small chance of survival for very long, then the only way that person would get any heroic care would be to be able to pay for it him/herself, but at the same cost it would take to try to save a productive 45 year old who has serious colon cancer and who qualifies for attempted life-saving or reasonably life-extension results--god knows what would be such guidelines, but they could be developed, as painful as it might be for some.

I would institute euthanasia as a choice for people facing sure death due to illness or infirmity to the degree that they choose no longer to hassle with attempting to eek out another day.

Abortion and birthcontrol on demand, with some limitation of length of pregnacy after which an abortion might not be offered except to save woman's life.

If one has other problems besides obesity, treatment for the other problems would be undertaken only so long as simultaneous treatment for the obesity was undertaken. Same for problems in abusers of drugs, alcohol, tobacco. If you use those things and want treatment for your diabetes or hypertension, or rheumatoid arthritis, etc. you will be given every encouragement/incentive and opportunity to control the known "bad" behaviors, or the system of healthcare for such people is limited.

I would computerize all patient's health records, so that the next doctor in the next city or another clinic could get a truer story of what has transpired by previous providers, and further so that previous providers if they have the intellectual curiosity might see what has gone on with patients seen with problems, but who disappeared without the doctor ever knowing whether he was correct or not in his assessment of a patient. Gosh, I would have loved that possiblity, might have even kept me practicing. Not everything a doctor writes in his note is correct with regard to what a patient might have said. Patients should have the right and obligation to read and offer corrections to doctor's notations. Doctor's notations would have to be done in reasonably intelligible terminology, so that patients could understand or reasonably gain understanding of what were a doctor's recommendations.

I would make it so that if one gets drunk and crashes his/her car and breaks every bone in his/her body, a blood alcohol level above that of sobriety would result in the person becoming liable for the cost of the care despite the consequences financially. Such people would not be eligible but for the least amounts of any sort of disability payments. I remember years ago some drunk kid cut off his penis. In my world that guy would be done with screwing, even if an alternative existed. If people want to engage in risky behaviors and suffer from doing so, their chances for remedy or attempts at remedy would be at the bottom of the list of priorities.

And this touches on eugenics and extreme external control of people's freedom, but to me it is a mistake for individual to choose or to be allowed to breed where there is high certainty of the offspring having a serious inherited disease. It's insanity to allow such, an alternative is abortion of fetus and adoption.

Those are things that have crossed my mind at one time on another, I am not prepared with regard to my time to argue they are best, which probably they aren't.

Whatever might be best with any serious re-constitution of the present healthcare system in the US will almost certainly not occur in the near future because of the lobbying efforts of the monied-interests. Hopefully something better will emerge, but I'm not betting on it.

[MulaMan]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

[quote=Jim Nickerson;111759]Nurse called and said liver function tests okay, so I could take the antifungal medication, which would have cost at the time $1700 [Sporanox] at Walmart for twelve weeks of it (I think I am recalling that correctly). An alternative drug with what I think is similar efficacy would have been$1180 [Lamisil]for same period. quote]

You don't want to be taking those anti-fungals, they can kill you! Get a bottle of Tincture for $10 from Wallgreens, file away the bad toenail each day, and apply the over-counter fungoid twice a day - you need to keep it up for a few months and the fungus will lose - it is simply a matter of keeping on top of it, as your new nail grows in you need to keep the fungus at bay until you knock it out.

This is a great example of how bad the US health care system is: 9 out of 10 doctors will prescribe one of those antifungals that can kill you when there is an easy, proven, over the counter solution.

Go to a Canadian or UK doctor and they will NEVER prescribe Sporanox or Lamisil for a simple toe fungus.

THINK ABOUT IT FOLKS! USA DOCTORS PRESCRIBE A TOXIC (PROVEN TOXIC) DRUG COSTING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS A TOE NAIL FUNGUS!

Get a toe nail fungus, go see Doctor, look at fancy Medical degree on wall, trust Doctor, mortgage house for money, ingest toxic chemicals for toe nail fungus, get liver failure, and then die.

but America has the greatest health care and doctors in the world.

[MulaMan]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

Singapore ( 1.3% of GDP on health care - lowest on planet earth) is a great example that dis-proves that hybrid public - private system cannot work:

• There are mandatory health savings accounts: "Individuals pre-save for medical expenses through mandatory deductions from their paychecks and employer contributions... Only approved categories of medical treatment can be paid for by deducting one's Medisave account, for oneself, grandparents, parents, spouse or children: consultations with private practitioners for minor ailments must be paid from out-of-pocket cash..."
• "The private healthcare system competes with the public healthcare, which helps contain prices in both directions. Private medical insurance is also available."
• Private healthcare providers are required to publish price lists to encourage comparison shopping.
• The government pays for "basic healthcare services... subject to tight expenditure control." Bottom line: The government pays 80% of "basic public healthcare services."
• Government plays a big role with contagious disease, and adds some paternalism on top: "Preventing diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and tobacco-related illnesses by ensuring good health conditions takes a high priority."
• The government provides optional low-cost catatrophic health insurance, plus a safety net "subject to stringent means-testing."

[MulaMan]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

People who have never lived outside their country of origin often have a wildly distorted view of what is possible and at what cost. Equally, they have wildly distorted view of their home nation's uniqueness. A few times when I was in Korea, I'd be chatting with a local -comparing observations about the US and Korea, and the local would say "We have four seasons!"... I assume they thought that was something really unique about Korea:-) It still cracks me up.

Fantasitic post - and it seems that when you get large powerhouse nations like the U.S.S.R and America and soon China then these wildly distorted views can go from funny to dangerous.

American drug firms make lots of toxic drugs but it would be really great if they could create something for freemarketitis.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

[quote=MulaMan;111775]

Nurse called and said liver function tests okay, so I could take the antifungal medication, which would have cost at the time $1700 [Sporanox] at Walmart for twelve weeks of it (I think I am recalling that correctly). An alternative drug with what I think is similar efficacy would have been$1180 [Lamisil]for same period. quote]

You don't want to be taking those anti-fungals, they can kill you! Get a bottle of Tincture for $10 from Wallgreens, file away the bad toenail each day, and apply the over-counter fungoid twice a day - you need to keep it up for a few months and the fungus will lose - it is simply a matter of keeping on top of it, as your new nail grows in you need to keep the fungus at bay until you knock it out.

This is a great example of how bad the US health care system is: 9 out of 10 doctors will prescribe one of those antifungals that can kill you when there is an easy, proven, over the counter solution.

Go to a Canadian or UK doctor and they will NEVER prescribe Sporanox or Lamisil for a simple toe fungus.

THINK ABOUT IT FOLKS! USA DOCTORS PRESCRIBE A TOXIC (PROVEN TOXIC) DRUG COSTING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS A TOE NAIL FUNGUS!

Get a toe nail fungus, go see Doctor, look at fancy Medical degree on wall, trust Doctor, mortgage house for money, ingest toxic chemicals for toe nail fungus, get liver failure, and then die.

but America has the greatest health care and doctors in the world.

Main Entry:1tinc£ture
Pronunciation:*ti*(k)-ch*r
Function:noun
Etymology:Middle English, from Latin tinctura act of dyeing, from tinctus, past participle of tingere to tinge
Date:14th century
1 a archaic : a substance that colors, dyes, or stains b : COLOR, TINT
2 a : a characteristic quality : CAST b : a slight admixture : TRACE *a tincture of doubt*
3 obsolete : an active principle or extract
4 : a heraldic metal, color, or fur
5 : a solution of a medicinal substance in an alcoholic solvent


Tincture of what?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

Tincture of what?

I made a concoction of equal parts of the following ingredients. I applied it two to three times a day minimum to a well developed case of toenail fungus, brushing it on the nails and nearby skin. It worked well, though it takes many months for slow growing toenails.

• Ibuprofen (had to squeeze out capsules, unavailable in bulk liquid) [Replaced - see P.S. below]
• Proclearz Tolfnafate (1 oz liquid bottles at drug store)
• Tea Tree Oil
• DMSO (get from online horse veterinary supply houses)
• Coconut Oil
• Aloe Vera
• Lamisil Terbinafine (1 oz liquid bottles at drug store)

I stored the product in glass bottles with black brush caps.

P.S. There is a better anti-inflamatory than ibuprofen. Squeezing out ibuprofen caps is wasteful,
tedious and expensive. They are packaged for oral, not topical, consumption.

I have just realized that in October 2007, the FDA approved diclofenac sodium gel (Voltaren Gel) 1%
as the first topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory. This can be purchased at various online sites as
a cream in tubes or jars, and in such a bulk form, should be much easier to mix in to this concoction.
The anti-inflammatory is intended to improve circulation and reduce inflammation, which some reports
I recall seeing improves the affectiveness of this treatment by improving its subdural concentrations.

[cjppjc]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

Singapore ( 1.3% of GDP on health care - lowest on planet earth) is a great example that dis-proves that hybrid public - private system cannot work:

I'll take the over anytime you want.:mad:

[mooncliff]

Re: Does America have the world's best health care?

Frontline briefly explains the health care system in other major industrial countries.

Basically, the US nominally spends double but has the worst outcome, so if we take the outcomes into consideration, the US spends say four times as much?

Click on
Watch the Full Program Online
then click on a box.
Each segment is about 10 minutes long.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...roundtheworld/

Over the next decade, many patents for drugs will run out. These drugs work nearly as well as the newest patented drugs, and will be really cheap out of patent, so whether you have drug coverage will be less of an issue except for really complicated things like chemotherapy.

A pill containing low-dose aspirin, B vitamin, and low dose cholesterol and blood pressure lowering drugs out of patent costs about 10 cents a day and would drop stroke and heart attack by about half or so.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7971456.stm

Vitamin D supplement also costs near nothing and can have a huge effect for the large part of the population that is deficient.

If we can slow the rate of aging, perhaps we can postpone most problems by a decade, so that we will have a longer functional lifespan (and will be forced to keep working until we are 75, ha ha!) and a relatively short decline at the end.
http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/200907105

You can get glasses online for 10-20 dollars instead of 200, so eyeglass coverage is much less of an issue already. I did this, and they are OK, and I saved me, friends and relatives 1,000 dollars so far for spare pairs. 10-20 is actually how much the optometrists pay, but they charge 200.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=89576384