Comments on: US health stat

By: kelly liddle

kelly liddle — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:54:27 +0000

Dog
I don’t know what any answer is but basically I think I am like most Australian’s are basically happy with our healthcare and for the moment it is cheap by international standards. If you asked people to actually pay for relatively small incriments in service without pretending that the money comes from the magic pudding I doubt you would have any takers and would fall into 2 groups those who are happy how it is and those who buy health insurance as they do now.

I wouldn’t expect Obamacare to make things better, at best it will be status quo with some possible improvement in some areas and lower outcomes in others.

By: sdog

sdog — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:40:07 +0000

...or as PJ O'Rourke put it back when the Clintons were pushing HillaryCare:

"If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free."

By: sdog

sdog — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:37:15 +0000

The rest of the world free-rides on the back of US public health spending on institutions like the NCI, CDC and NIH. Perhaps they should shut them down and save US taxpayers some money … but who would pick up the slack?

They could also stop funding free healthcare for 11+ million illegals … but I don’t think anyone would have the stomach to just let them die in the streets.

But basically I think most Americans would agree with your point: the US government is not an efficient healthcare provider.

Which is why Obamacare faces such opposition from those who will be stuck picking up the tab (as opposed to foreigners, who drool over the idea of Americans being forced into socialised medicine). At the moment, the government only has control over healthcare for the poor, for the elderly, for Indians and for Vets… and look what a hash they make of it. Why on earth would we want to expand their brief?

By: kelly liddle

kelly liddle — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 15:02:05 +0000

Dog I object to all excessive spending including the areas you mentioned and don't object to anyone spending there own money on health. Australia spent less on education than the US in 2009 but we were not far behind. Based on 2010 figures public health spending in the US was 60% more or 3.6% higher as a proportion of GDP which by itself would mean a 3.6% tax rate. Do I want a 3.6% tax increase the answer is no.

By: sdog

sdog — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 14:01:47 +0000

It’s odd how when a country spends more on education, or maternity leave, or welfare, that’s A Good Thing; but when it spends more on healthcare, that’s A Bad Thing.

By: sdog

sdog — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:57:28 +0000

would we want such an expensive system here? I wouldn’t.

The international patients liaisons’ offices at places like MD Anderson and Mayo Clinic are choc-a-bloc with desperate patients from countries with socialized healthcare who, probably just a year earlier, were putting their smug little noses in the air and sniffing about how superior their “free” healthcare systems were to that horrible expensive American monstrosity.

Nobody wants to pay for “expensive” healthcare until they realize it can save their lives or those of their children.

I wonder where the world will go for its advanced high-tech life-saving medical treatment when the US is brought down to NHS levels?

By: kelly liddle

kelly liddle — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:34:53 +0000

JC Spending an extra 8% of GDP on health means on average people must work 8% longer everything else being equal and I would prefer to work 8% less and retire younger and die a little younger.

By: JC

JC — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:10:33 +0000

Pay peanuts and you end up with a bag full of monkey’s Kelly.

There’s a great deal of entrepreneurialism in the US medical care system. On the whole doctors really want to find out what’s wrong and cure you.

By: kelly liddle

kelly liddle — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:02:29 +0000

So now we seem to have established that the US has one of the best health systems would we want such an expensive system here? I wouldn’t. Have to remember it is around double the cost overall.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 00:25:53 +0000

I refer you again to the CDC study I linked above. If you want the facts, go to the epidemiologists. If you want agit-prop, go to the National Review and the Wall Street Journal

The Left destroy everything.

So far: the Arts, Media, Popular Culture – MTV/Hollywood, Universities, Public Service, Teaching, Social Science, Philosophy, Economics and are now busily destroying Science with co-called Climate Science and Medicine with doctors who state that abiortion is good public health and any pseudo study used as agitprop to further big government statist Leftism.

The first stated key finding in regularly polluting statist Grey’s reference is:

Infant mortality rates for preterm (less than 37 weeks of gestation) infants are lower in the United States than in most European countries; however, infant mortality rates for infants born at 37 weeks of gestation or more are higher in the United States than in most European countries.

Fancy that.

Gee….. I wonder why.