> This whole "Healthcare is better X" is a fallacy.
It's not. There are objective questions on which one can compare healthcare systems:
- do people end up bankrupt / needing a gofundme for medical events regularly? This comparison alone is enough to discard the US system, for example.
- do poor people have access to the same quality of healthcare as rich people do? In Germany, for example, dental care only covers "basic" implants/fillings that, while they do work, do not look very good.
- what is the median response time target from call to arrival of EMS?
- is staffing of careworkers in hospitals/hospices/elderly care adequate or is it regularly understaffed?
- do people of "undocumented", refugee or unemployment status have access to healthcare?
- does medical insurance require (absurdly large) co-payments?
- is medical insurance actually affordable for all persons eligible?
- does medical insurance pay for quackery (such as homeopathy)?
- is medicine (both OTC and prescription) affordable / covered by insurance?
> I.e. In Europe people will eat more produce and fruits simply because their Grocery stores are on every corner. In the U.S. Not so, even in major cities.
While I agree that this is a foundation that causes illnesses, I don't see this relevant when comparing healthcare systems. Health care should be compared on how those in need are attended to.
Yes, I agree there are objective questions. But few people who make these arguments are..
1. Qualified and Educated enough on the matter to really comment and dive into it.
2. Are making the argument from an objective perspective.
Simply put - A majority of Americans don't even realize that with deductibles, if they paid cash for a doctor visit or medication and then sent insurance the bill. That they would save money. Instead they go through insurance, which increases the price, and because they haven't hit their deductible. They end up paying more.
> I don't see this relevant when comparing healthcare systems. Health care should be compared on how those in need are attended to.
Because rates such as the ability to care for people are largely dependent on how many people are sick and ill. - For Example - The large replacement of fats with sugar in foods in the United States is being tied to an increase in Obesity and Diabetes. This alone is one of the biggest spends of the US Healthcare industry.
These are things that need to be considered when planning long term 10-20 year changes in Healthcare. Because in order to plan for Healthcare needs for 10-20 years, it is largely dependent on factors such as this.
It's not. There are objective questions on which one can compare healthcare systems:
- do people end up bankrupt / needing a gofundme for medical events regularly? This comparison alone is enough to discard the US system, for example.
- do poor people have access to the same quality of healthcare as rich people do? In Germany, for example, dental care only covers "basic" implants/fillings that, while they do work, do not look very good.
- what is the median response time target from call to arrival of EMS?
- is staffing of careworkers in hospitals/hospices/elderly care adequate or is it regularly understaffed?
- do people of "undocumented", refugee or unemployment status have access to healthcare?
- does medical insurance require (absurdly large) co-payments?
- is medical insurance actually affordable for all persons eligible?
- does medical insurance pay for quackery (such as homeopathy)?
- is medicine (both OTC and prescription) affordable / covered by insurance?
> I.e. In Europe people will eat more produce and fruits simply because their Grocery stores are on every corner. In the U.S. Not so, even in major cities.
While I agree that this is a foundation that causes illnesses, I don't see this relevant when comparing healthcare systems. Health care should be compared on how those in need are attended to.