USA Saves baby sentenced to death by UK health care. LIVE WITH DIGNITY!

[nostradumbass]

It's a reasonable objection but no corrected statistics are available so now the burden of evidence is upon you to prove your statement that it "more than makes up the difference".

I would like to think that you have a source to support your claim but I have my doubts given that we also have statistics for deaths of children under 5 years old, which show a pretty similar spread to the posted infant mortality chart despite that there are less problematic definitions involved. It does of course include all sorts of deaths though, so it's not exactly the same as the previous statistic, but still.

Well there can't be, because the who point was that countries just don't keep statistics the same way. The difference is pretty minimal, like .01-.02, so whatever it actually is would probably be significantly less than what's reported knowing that the US has the highest standard for qualifies as infant mortality in the first place. If you don't keep the same stats at all, then there aren't going to be a separate number of adjusted stats, otherwise the fake number would be thrown out entirely.

 

[nostradumbass]

I agree that universal care diminishes quality, that's just a fact of life. The NHS would have to be funded completely beyond what is reasonable to reach certain a quality like this child received. But I believe you can strike a fine balance, between providing essential services and frontline care for free, whilst having the quality and expertise that comes with a privatised service for more costly procedures and treatments, which would probably look a little like what the dentistry service in the UK looks like. A privatised service that offers basic treatment cheaper on the NHS.

Right now in the UK, we absolutely have gone away from quality in the name of cost cutting and saving, and patients are suffering for it, which is why we are seeing a move towards privatisation of certain sectors of the NHS, whether this will improve overall care though remains to be seen.

Yeah, I mean, I would not oppose a move for everyone to have catastrophic coverage for anything over a certain amount, but day to day shit like a cold or a stubbed toe, nope. It's the little shit used 10x as often that will break the bank.

 

[Squarechoke]

Well there can't be, because the who point was that countries just don't keep statistics the same way. The difference is pretty minimal, like .01-.02, so whatever it actually is would probably be significantly less than what's reported knowing that the US has the highest standard for qualifies as infant mortality in the first place. If you don't keep the same stats at all, then there aren't going to be a separate number of adjusted stats, otherwise the fake number would be thrown out entirely.

Which brings us to my point about your declaration that the difference more than made up for the reported difference between the UK and the US. My point wasn't that the US is bad but that the statement didn't seem to be founded in facts, which it should be if it's in the same post as criticism about inaccurate facts.

If it had been a more speculative statement it would be a bit different, but that's why I posted about the under-five mortality rate which is something one can use to view a similar issue that doesn't share all the same complications. I guess that's really less about your statement though, and more about the OP's cherry-picked case to make a very wide statement, which wasn't very clever.

 

[WhitebeltXL]

Yeah, I mean, I would not oppose a move for everyone to have catastrophic coverage for anything over a certain amount, but day to day shit like a cold or a stubbed toe, nope. It's the little shit used 10x as often that will break the bank.

100%. And this is also the most common problem you hear Britons have with the NHS, over usage and health tourism. I currently split my working time in the NHS between General Practice and Out of Hours/A&E. Let me just say, common sense when it comes to what constitutes an emergency would go a long way to cutting costs, but it'll never change whilst it's free to access, no matter how many times you tell patients or how many posters you put up explaining to them.

 

[nostradumbass]

Which brings us to my point about your declaration that the difference more than made up for the reported difference between the UK and the US. My point wasn't that the US is bad but that the statement didn't seem to be founded in facts, which it should be if it's in the same post as criticism about inaccurate facts.

If it had been a more speculative statement it would be a bit different, but that's why I posted about the under-five mortality rate which is something one can use to view a similar issue that doesn't share all the same complications. I guess that's really less about your statement though, and more about the OP's cherry-picked case to make a very wide statement, which wasn't very clever.

Sure, that's fair enough, but it isn't hard to say "well we don't have the real numbers, but we have fake ones, so lets' just run with that until the real number somehow materialize". I'd love the real number, but nobody is keeping consistent stats on them, so it seems pretty safe to assume that when the difference is .01 or .02% and we know for whom the numbers are skewed, it doesn't take a huge margin for error to close that gap. I was responding to @Trotsky 's claim that we have thousands die each year due to poor coverage that would have been saved if they'd been born in the UK. We do have the highest quality of care and no doctors deny baby deliveries because of a lack of coverage.

 

[Squarechoke]

Sure, that's fair enough, but it isn't hard to say "well we don't have the real numbers, but we have fake ones, so lets' just run with that until the real number somehow materialize". I'd love the real number, but nobody is keeping consistent stats on them, so it seems pretty safe to assume that when the difference is .01 or .02% and we know for whom the numbers are skewed, it doesn't take a huge margin for error to close that gap. I was responding to @Trotsky 's claim that we have thousands die each year due to poor coverage that would have been saved if they'd been born in the UK. We do have the highest quality of care and no doctors deny baby deliveries because of a lack of coverage.

I already said it's a fair objection to point to differences in how the stats are collected so we agree there (it's a factor in several crime statistics as well), my point was just that I think you went too far in the other direction with your statement. As for quality of care it's of course high in the US but you aren't ranked the highest.

 

[nostradumbass]

I already said it's a fair objection to point to differences in how the stats are collected so we agree there (it's a factor in several crime statistics as well), my point was just that I think you went too far in the other direction with your statement. As for quality of care it's of course high in the US but you aren't ranked the highest.

OK, so we're at an impasse. I will add that the disease burden is also highest in the US among all those countries listed, so "quality of care" should be ranked relative to the people who get those conditions, not how many get them out of the population.

 

[Squarechoke]

OK, so we're at an impasse. I will add that the disease burden is also highest in the US among all those countries listed, so "quality of care" should be ranked relative to the people who get those conditions, not how many get them out of the population.

It usually is when you look at individual diseases. For example, when you look at heart attacks you don't judge how many out of the population that had them but how high the survival rate is. General healthcare quality is judged on many factors though.

 

[Orgasmo]

Not sure how many people you know who would rather die or have their kids die instead of paying to be saved. America is still #1 in cancer survival, even the bloody German above you admits US is top-notch in heart procedures, and most medicines are invented here. You can lower costs and quality pays the forfeit. This thread is getting curiously few responses.

There is certainly some shit to fix here when people keep getting referred to other doctors and nobody can even ballpark the cost of a visit for someone without medical insurance, but the solution isn't to make being a doctor less appealing by turning them all into government employees.

Unfortunately for you, general indicators of health does not support your theory that US system delivers superior healthcare to its population.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...ease-burden-higher-u-s-comparable-countries-2
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...ked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-comparison-20170715-htmlstory.html

 

[MikeMcMann]

I mean, that really is the whole debate. You can't have universality and quality. Luckily, so far, I've been sick like once my entire adult life and spent about 200 bucks going to the dr and getting antibiotics. I could have spent like an extra $50k over the last 12 years to get my 200 dollar coverage or just put it away on the off-chance I'll need it at some point. By definition, you have to have people pay for more than they take to cover people who take out more than they put in. I'm pretty healthy and make decent money, so I'm not gonna do that. People keep talking like this money is just going to pop up from thin air or anybody who's made good choices and has a decent job is just an endless bag of loot we can shake down.

the highlighted is not accurate.

I am confused by a few things being debated here.

Do the left in the USA typically try to argue that American medicine at the top end is sub par or not up to the standards of other nations? I'm Canadian and we all know the US care at the top end and in speciality faculties is tops in the world.

But just because the US is tops in this specific area to save this child does not mean they are tops i every single area. Other countries have faculties, at times where they are tops in that area.

Where the US system fails is for the lower middle class and below. And not because the care is not available but rather because its unaffordable.The US system is completely broken in that regard due to special interests.

 

[nostradumbass]

Unfortunately for you, general indicators of health does not support your theory that US system delivers superior healthcare to its population.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org...ease-burden-higher-u-s-comparable-countries-2
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danmun...ked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-healthcare-comparison-20170715-htmlstory.html

Dude, if you're going to throw graphs, maybe include what the graphs denote instead of chucking links as "spoilers".

the highlighted is not accurate.

I am confused by a few things being debated here.

Do the left in the USA typically try to argue that American medicine at the top end is sub par or not up to the standards of other nations? I'm Canadian and we all know the US care at the top end and in speciality faculties is tops in the world.

But just because the US is tops in this specific area to save this child does not mean they are tops i every single area. Other countries have faculties, at times where they are tops in that area.

Where the US system fails is for the lower middle class and below. And not because the care is not available but rather because its unaffordable.The US system is completely broken in that regard due to special interests.

I honestly don't know if that's what they're arguing. We do know that with the inclusion of universality that the quality suffers.

This hasn't always been the case and the US never had universal medical insurance. I seriously saw my grandmother's receipt for my dad's birth and it was $31 for a one week stay and a baby delivery. There was no "universal healthcare" in 1949. University was cheap too at that time. The 2 things that have gone out of control are because of this shitty mixed system of free market but some gov't intrusion picking winners.

 

[aitkenmike]

This is wrong. from the mother last year (this is a year old story being rehashed now for political reasons)

Lydia said: “We don’t want families in the future to go through the stress of fundraising like we did.

“Oliver now has a future we never could have imagined. We’re so grateful to anyone who donated or sent us messages of support. If we could thank them all personally we would.

“The NHS, too, as well as the team in Boston, have been fantastic.

“We’d never have got here if Oliver’s consultants in Oxford and Southampton hadn’t pushed forwards for us. He owes his life to a cast of thousands.”

The NHS had to go through all the shitty red-tape first, which is why the parents started to fund privately, but the decision was made and the actual front line staff and consultants were pushing for the decision to be made.

Please don't let facts get in the way of the story.

 

[Orgasmo]

Dude, if you're going to throw graphs, maybe include what the graphs denote instead of chucking links as "spoilers".

TLDR: Murica has crappier healthcare result in general compared to other industrialized nations.

Now if your counter-argument is complaining about graphs and factual links being too tough to read, then you really got nothing.

 

[nostradumbass]

TLDR: Murica has crappier healthcare result in general compared to other industrialized nations.

Now if your counter-argument is complaining about graphs and factual links being too tough to read, then you really got nothing.

It's that I had no idea what your graphs mean to have a clue what to debunk. They're all shit anyway, but as you presented them, just nebulous graphs with nothing to debunk or dispute. Me, nostradumbass, do you think I would have better healthcare if my taxes were hiked up another several thousand dollars or if I paid for shit that goes wrong when it goes wrong and just kept the extra savings?

 

[MikeMcMann]

Dude, if you're going to throw graphs, maybe include what the graphs denote instead of chucking links as "spoilers".



I honestly don't know if that's what they're arguing. We do know that with the inclusion of universality that the quality suffers.

This hasn't always been the case and the US never had universal medical insurance. I seriously saw my grandmother's receipt for my dad's birth and it was $31 for a one week stay and a baby delivery. There was no "universal healthcare" in 1949. University was cheap too at that time. The 2 things that have gone out of control are because of this shitty mixed system of free market but some gov't intrusion picking winners.

that statement is inaccurate for many reasons.

Quality suffers in ALL systems including the current US one. There are pluses and minuses in each. Again the US one suffers the most for those who are lower middle class or below. That group also happens to be the most vulnerable and least capable to deal with a short fall in a system.

I can also tell you how the Canadian system quality suffers. It is not at the low end. Our care is excellent for the lower middle class and below. But at the very high end of speciality care we lack in some areas. Luckily the people who want that care are typically wealthy and can typically just go to the US or elsewhere to pay for it, if they really want it.

 

[JJSBUR]

Since Murica saved the baby from the evil socialist NHs, who's gonna save Muricans from medical bankruptcies and sky high prices? Surely there is no dignity in being broke due to illness.


https://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

I know you will have a hard time believing this but it is a hard one to fix without one of two things happening. That is lowering the rate at which new drugs are invented or quit deal that exclude fixed costs for drugs exports which will raise everyone elses costs. This way overly simplified since it should take a book to hash this out and still you will not have much on economical answers when it can cost more than a billion to create the next successful drug and most research baths become dead ends.

 

[nostradumbass]

that statement is inaccurate for many reasons.

Quality suffers in ALL systems including the current US one. There are pluses and minuses in each. Again the US one suffers the most for those who are lower middle class or below. That group also happens to be the most vulnerable and least capable to deal with a short fall in a system.

I can also tell you how the Canadian system quality suffers. It is not at the low end. Our care is excellent for the lower middle class and below. But at the very high end of speciality care we lack in some areas. Luckily the people who want that care are typically wealthy and can typically just go to the US or elsewhere to pay for it, if they really want it.

Yes, I don't think we disagree on anything. As is the case with many other things, the US has to exist to pick up the slack where more socialized places fall short. This is true of reliance on US military as well as the existence of US healthcare to fill in stuff that isn't covered in Canada. You need us to exist as we are for multiple reasons. I like Canada, my mom is Canadian, but let's be honest, if the US didn't exist, Canada would evaporate, if Canada didn't exist, I don't think the US would even notice.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Yes, I don't think we disagree on anything. As is the case with many other things, the US has to exist to pick up the slack where more socialized places fall short. This is true of reliance on US military as well as the existence of US healthcare to fill in stuff that isn't covered in Canada. You need us to exist as we are for multiple reasons. I like Canada, my mom is Canadian, but let's be honest, if the US didn't exist, Canada would evaporate, if Canada didn't exist, I don't think the US would even notice.

If US (or any other) healthcare was not an option to Canadians we would survive. A few people might die, like that UK baby might have died, but it certainly would not impact the population. But again I repeat the US may have some specialty areas that people will seek out but so too does Canada. Believe it or not we do have areas at times that some US citizens come here for. Any country can pioneer new treatments and technology. The US just does it more.

So Canada does not need the US due to our more socialist leanings. We choose that regardless of our US neighbour.

But yes when it comes to the US military and the umbrella it casts over its allies that is true (kind of). But the US prompts that reliance which they then complain about. The US wants its allies reliant on them, there military, their dollar. So ya if the US wants to go full retard on their military, and they have gone full retard, then ally countries will stand down and rightly so. no point in all allies going full retard re Military. You underestimate the US reliance on Canada. Look up how much natural resources the US imports from Canada. So while we may benefit from your military you benefit from our resources. Its a two way street.

 

[lifelessheap]

yay socialism.... you seem to have left this bit of the article out

You seem to have left out the part where it took INTERNATIONAL shame to force them to pay for a small part of the surgery. And even then, they only caved in because of the other dead children they wouldn't help treat.

So it takes babies blood on their hands and an international camera on their face to do the right thing.

DERP

 

[MayhemMonkey]

You seem to have left out the part where it took INTERNATIONAL shame to force them to pay for a small part of the surgery. And even then, they only caved in because of the other dead children they wouldn't help treat.

So it takes babies blood on their hands and an international camera on their face to do the right thing.

DERP

how many times has international shame made an insurance company pay for emergency treatment for a child in America?

Socialism ftw