> The US has the highest preventable death rate in the developed world.
They also have by far the highest obesity rate in the developed world.
> Have diabetes and no insurance? That's pretty much a death sentence and they'll watch you die. Need surgery? No insurance? No surgery and death because of complications caused by the lack of surgery.
I'm supportive of universal healthcare, but this is a huge exaggeration. If policy decisions are motivated by uninformed memes like this, then if we ever do get universal healthcare, it will be a disaster.
You can buy human insulin for $25 a vial at Walmart. It's not as good, but it's what people used a couple decades ago. Countries with nationalized healthcare often have long backlogs for treatments. The cancer backlog in the UK is over 2 million people and it's continuing to grow [1]. Also, if you are insured, you're typically going to get new and more sophisticated treatments on the US compared to most places with nationalized healthcare.
That's simply untrue. My nephew is on insulin for life and he spent a long time homeless.
Where are the "reports constantly of people dying in the US because they tried to get their insulin to last them multiple days and ended up dying"? There are isolated cases where someone doesn't take care of it and dies, but it isn't widespread.
Maybe take a break from the propaganda you're reading (In Ireland, I assume?).
The problem with these emotionally charged characterizations is that they can be used against you. Conservatives will use the rationing caused by large cancer backlog in the UK as evidence for "death panels."
In the US we prefer our "death panels" to be handled by insurance companies, hospital administrators, and pharmaceutical companies. Rather than having public discourse about rationing of care we privatize our death panels and they operate in relative secrecy.
The fact that it's possible for someone to repeat what you say back to you is not a strong argument. Which of those two countries you mentioned has better health outcomes?
The funny thing is they're using the UK which is literally going nuts over the state of the NHS. The UK is extremely unhappy with the backlogs. And almost certainly they'll be getting reduced once a new goverment is voted in during the next general election. The really funny part, I bet a lower percentage of the captia die from cancer in the UK than the US. Because they can get some sort of treatment. And of course a system that treats everyone is going to have longer wait times than one that treats only a percentage of the population. And the ability to pay to avoid wait times is still there. Turns out having public and private hospitals pays off.
> The really funny part, I bet a lower percentage of the captia die from cancer in the UK than the US.
The US, quite famously, generally has the highest cancer survival rates in the world. The standard bearers for cancer survival rates in Europe have traditionally been Switzerland and France, which are close to the same level as the US. A decade ago in the UK there was a public outcry when studies showed it had one of the poorest cancer survival rates in the developed world; in the well-known Lancet study, survival rates in the US were 50% higher than the UK.
The UK has improved their cancer survival rates significantly over the last decade in response to those studies but it isn't near the top tier.
In the US, everyone gets essentially the same cancer treatments, even if they are poor. The economic stratification occurs around enrollment in experimental cancer treatments, by virtue of needing to be located where experimental therapies are being tested. Experimental therapies are a big deal in the US because most state-of-the-art treatments are developed and tested there before being widely available. If you want to enroll in experimental cancer treatments outside of where they are being tested, you need to have the economic means to travel there. I personally know people on welfare in the US who survived Stage 4 cancer because they happened to live where highly effective experimental cancer therapies were being tested, making it readily available to them.
The US lives a little bit in the future for state-of-the-art cancer treatments. I know several people that survived cancer in the US thanks to experimental therapies that are now standard therapies. It usually takes a while for these to propagate to other parts of the world.
sincere question about medical costs of that cancer survival: it seems like a standard thing to compare. if we just look at the non-experimential stuff, is there something interesting? are US treatments better? even if adjusted for costs? can we even compare them somehow? purchasing power parity, sure, and cost breakdown of states/regions, differences in coding, market sizes and thus market efficiency, regulatory compliance costs, cancer base rate (age, obesity, socioeconomic status, air quality, other factors) ... ?
Poor people in the US don't pay for their cancer treatments, the government does. They broadly use the same medical facilities as everyone else wherever they live, which do vary with locale. Some rural backwaters may not have the most advanced tech, you have to go to a city for that.
The segment of the US with most challenging cost problems are the lower-middle class. Not poor enough for the government to pay for everything while also being at risk of having little or no insurance. For people comfortably in the middle-class and up, this is much less likely to be the case.
The overall story is complicated. Demographics and health matter (not great in the US). The US medical system is profligate about speculative and preventative diagnostic tests which catch more cancers earlier (at great cost). But also early access to rapidly improving cancer treatments. It all blends together into the top-line numbers.
> The US has the highest preventable death rate in the developed world.
>> They also have by far the highest obesity rate in the developed world.
So... I am sure that is one reason of the highest preventable death rate. doesn't invalidate GP point.
> I'm supportive of universal healthcare, but this is a huge exaggeration.
Sadly in a way its not an exaggeration at all, will doctors and nurses literally watch you die of course not. If you go into the ER they legally have to stabilize you. But that's it. If I have cancer and and really sick, If they take to me to the ER, they will stabilize me but they want start treating the cancer. Even if its still early, they will watch you die over time as the cancer advances and makes you worse.
To be fair, I am certain the doctors and nurses want to treat you. But the hospital won't/can't allow it for bullshit reasons.
> You can buy human insulin for $25 a vial at Walmart. It's not as good, but it's what people used a couple decades ago.
I can't believe your defending poor people having to use worse insulin. How is that okay for you? We are talking about peoples lives, can the richest country on earth aim a little higher then throwing decades old medical knowledge at poor people to shut them up?
> I'm supportive of universal healthcare,
No you aren't, after that claim about supporting it, you spend the rest of your post shooting down universal healthcare.
> Countries with nationalized healthcare often have long backlogs for treatments. The cancer backlog in the UK is over 2 million people and it's continuing to grow [1].
> Also, if you are insured, you're typically going to get new and more sophisticated treatments on the US compared to most places with nationalized healthcare.
The UK has its issue, but from what I can see its because they are purposely starving it of money so they can ultimately privatize it.
America's health care is fucking garbage. There is no defending it, I'm so tired of spending my time calling several different companies to figure out why I am getting billed for something I shouldn't be. I'm not exaggerating either, literally one or twice a month I get the joy of calling my insurance and whatever doctor sent the bill and try and solve why my insurance won't cover it.
I agree, but it's not for a lack of spending. The US government actually spends more per capita on healthcare than the UK in total. I'm not opposed to universal healthcare. I'm opposed to politicians throwing money at a problem to buy votes, but that is the only thing that can result from a universal policy that results from healthcare at all costs rhetoric.
Completely agree, maybe if the USA got rid of the FDA and the whole concept of prescription medicine we'd be able to buy cheap medicine without the all the protectionism that the state bolts on.
They also have by far the highest obesity rate in the developed world.
> Have diabetes and no insurance? That's pretty much a death sentence and they'll watch you die. Need surgery? No insurance? No surgery and death because of complications caused by the lack of surgery.
I'm supportive of universal healthcare, but this is a huge exaggeration. If policy decisions are motivated by uninformed memes like this, then if we ever do get universal healthcare, it will be a disaster.
You can buy human insulin for $25 a vial at Walmart. It's not as good, but it's what people used a couple decades ago. Countries with nationalized healthcare often have long backlogs for treatments. The cancer backlog in the UK is over 2 million people and it's continuing to grow [1]. Also, if you are insured, you're typically going to get new and more sophisticated treatments on the US compared to most places with nationalized healthcare.
[1] https://news.cancerresearchuk.org/2020/06/01/over-2-million-...