Sure, the problem is that the medical industry doesnt shovel hundreds of millions to lawyers, administrators and investigators to find loopholes to show the coverage you thought you had in fact you didnt have. But that isnt surprising that they do this and its the inevitable consequence of privatised healthcare.

LOL, you really want to use life expectancy to further your position? The USA ranks near the bottom end of the spectrum of industrialized countries:



Basically if this is the criterion to use for measuring 'success' of a health care system it would convince anyone that the US system is among the worst. But hey, it's better than Mexico's, so that's something.

Certainly not completely random. I agree that there is more people can do for their health, especially in America. But that does not mean they should become impoverished because they got sick.


I am curious about your background. I wonder how you think it is possible for any sizable portion of the population of any country to afford health insurance payments while saving thousands of dollars for possibility of not being covered. Do you also think they should have a personal fund set up to sue their insurers in case they are denied coverage and have to fight them in the courts to get the bills payed for the coverage they bought?

Honestly I think your opinion about how things work in the real world is not vested in reality. If you look across the world you can see how every country but the US and China provide some type coverage for their population. You should understand that we are the ones making intentionally harder on our citizens for no viable reason.

I would imagine it to be a pretty brutal experience.

The post I was responding to said "any country with universal health care", so Mexico qualifies. Perhaps you hoped I was responding to the point in your head instead of what someone actually wrote.

I only used Mexico as an example because it was used in this thread. I'm pretty sure that my statement is axiomatically true. No system covers everyone for everything.

As far as the second part, I disagree with your statement that in rich UHC countries patients can get virtually everything they get in the US. A thorough discussion of this is going to require more effort than I want to expend. Here's the way that discussion would have to go:

1. I find example of rich UHC country that doesn't provide X treatment, that Medicare and most insurance plans cover.
2. I then show that this treatment does provide significant benefits in longevity and/or quality of life. (This is the most time consuming part).
3. Once I've accomplished step 2, you'll say that's just one isolated example, and ask me to provide another.

We'll repeat steps 1-3 until one of us gets tired or bored.

So, let me save you some trouble. I do think that in some rich UHC countries, patients can get very good health care. However, I think that there are a certain number of conditions (X) for which you will receive much better care
in the US.

Our difference of opinion is that I think X is a low number but significant. You think X is a low number and is insignificant. We're never going to resolve that here.

When you are trying to cover "no system in the world", surely you see why its not a good idea to start at a third world corrupt hell hole people get smuggled out of in order to pick strawberries for a living?

And fwiw in a greater sense your point is probably true, but you achieve nothing by comparing America to Mexico unless you are actively looking for a terrible country.

Let's stop right there. I don't know how many times I need to repeat this. I never said anything about whether our current system is the best, whether we should have universal health care or not, whether employers should subsidize health care, etc.

You, case closed, and Phil are inferring a whole bunch of things that I never have said. So for completeness sake let me recap the points I have made.

1. In our current system, many people just don't take saving for health care as seriously as they should. This is irrational. If there are a large number of people that are being bankrupted by < 10K bills, I think a significant portion of them could have avoided it if they made saving for health care a priority. But people just don't think this way (at least most don't).

I do admit (as I always have), that many of these people, under our current system, could not have avoided bankruptcy even if they saved every penny for health care.

2. No system covers everyone for everything.

3. I think that for a low but significant number of conditions, a patient will receive better care in the US than they would in a rich UHC care country.


Here's what I have not said,

1. On balance, our system is better than UHC.
2. People should be able to avoid medical bankruptcy in the US in all cases.
3. Our system is better than UHC at avoiding medical bankruptcy.

Melkerson,

If that's what you're saying then you have not said anything at all. You've made some bad claims that you cannot back up at all. Where do you get the idea that people don't take healthcare seriously? Honestly, how old are you?

Well I do, and you do, but I genuinely believe there are some people who look at the Mexico stats posted in this thread and truly believe that if every American had what the the average Mexican has, we'd probably be just as well off.

I agree that comparing the US to wealthier UHC countries is more useful. But that's not what I was responding to at the time.

I am a physician in my late 30s and I have practiced in the United States for my entire career.

Oh, so you have purchased health insurance for yourself and have worked in the industry. I still don't see how you think that it possible for people who can be bankrupted by a 10k medical bill could have possibly saved the money required to pay for those bills when they must have already been in financial dire straights. You realize that for a lot of people 10k represents a very significant portion of their yearly income?

I don't see how you think it is impossible. It's not possible for everyone avoid bankruptcy from an <10K bill, but it is possible for some. Surely you can see that. Many times I have seen patients prioritize non-essential spending over spending on medical bills. It happens a lot.

So, you just want people to display better ability than they are displaying right now. You want this to happen based on no research into an ability to achieve the results you want. I am still unsure what type of system you would prefer over the US free market system or UHC. Personally I think UHC is the best system that exists right now. Your "just save more" theory does not seem too practical or even backed up with your own research.

I'm not even saying I want anything. I was just making an observation.

I agree. It's not fair to Mexico!

Maybe healthcare execs aren't entitled and shouldn't receive 8 figure retirement pensions. Maybe prescription drugs shouldn't remain $100+/mth for life. There must be a way the lower the cost of healthcare. This government isn't even trying to find a way to lower healthcare cost.