The Observation Deck

it all depends on which benchmarks you're using.

virtually every developed country has healthcare or health behavior much more closely regulated than in the U.S., in purely economic aspects. Most of them also have longer life expectancies, healthier life expectancies, safer residential neighborhoods, less oil addiction, more successful education systems.

We don't need all of that. some of it is nice, of course. the question the public has to ask itself is, "what are we trying to do?".

On the other hand, it might be safer to die before social security goes bankrupt or it costs a months salary to get 5 stitches in your finger.

Grace O'Malley wrote:Looks like we Americans are headed to the cemetery earlier than many others:

The lower life expectancy of Americans has nothing at all to do with the American medical system. It has a great deal to do with urban social decay, diet, sexual activity and obesity, in other words, individual choices and behavior. Higher murder rates and lower abortion rates are also a factor.

see: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7089/1271

The actual medical care delivered to Americans is better than that delivered in England or France. Survival rates for cancer and other diseases are higher in the U.S than other countries.

Any program that seeks to bring European style medical care to the U.S would ultimately fail because American government is generally incompetent. We would probably end up with hospitals that looked like Martin Luther King Hospital in LA. See

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/ ... h-medicine

http://outside.in/places/king-drew-medi ... os-angeles

Consider this: Complicated medical procedures like plastic surgery and laser I operations have declined in price because they are generally paid for by the consumer. How much would they cost if government footed the bill?

Free market medical care can work if given a chance. For the last forty years the Federal government has been engaged in a deliberate effort to sabotage the free market. In most cases they have succeeded.

We already have national health care in the U.S. Between Medicare, Medicaid and county hospitals government already controls much of the access and costs which impact the access and costs of those covered by private insurance.

Virtually anyone not formally enrolled Medicare or Medicaid and without private health care insurance can be treated at any county hospital. (Unfortunately, we all know this emergency treatment is the most expensive type of care and comes with little if any preventative care.)

We seem to have some type of public/private (mostly public) hybrid where the worst aspects of both are magnified.

I don't have a problem with pharmaceutical companies making huge profits. I do, however, have a problem with health insurance companies doing so.

FYI - County hospital emergency rooms will only administer emergency treatment to low income un-insured persons. They do not treat for ongoing things like cancer, leukemia, blood pressure management, diabetes care, kidney dialysis and things that many take for granted.

Anyone who thinks that they are free and clear on health care, needs to think again. A lot of employers are opting out or raising employee contributions because of high costs of insurance. A lot of pension plans have dropped coverage.

Many small businesses and non-profits can't afford to cover owners let alone employees.

Self-employed people are being priced out of the market.

Just some things to think about when people be rate national health care.

Many of you will not have any down the road.

David Anderson wrote:We seem to have some type of public/private (mostly public) hybrid where the worst aspects of both are magnified.

That is a true fact!

Bill -

While I commend you on your research - I fault your sources.

BMI - is a portal that deciminates info from coporate entities. i.e. drug trials reported on by pharmaceutical companies.

LA Times - owned by the Hearst Corp.

The last one is a blog spot citing mainstream media.

The mainstream media is not giving the correct info.

There are plenty of places on the net where you can talk one on one with people from all over the world. American media is corporate owned, therefore pushes the corporated line.

Think outside the box that is created by a culture of manipulated, corporate sponsored media, which is the antithesis of what we do here, discourse on real life experiences with people whose names we know, who live where we live.

Bill the title of this thread has it absolutely wrong. America ranks 36 - 37 in the world. The countries ahead of us all have national health care - most of them single payer variety.

We are spending more and getting less than most countries.

The for profit insurance companies are getting rich and working hard to disqualify people. So many people can't even buy insurance in this country because of pre-existing conditions. It is a travesty. And the number 1 reason for bankruptcies in this country is medical bills.

The US is at the forefront of medical innovation. The US has some of the most sophisticated equipment in the world, many of the best doctors from around the world end up working in the United States. I would suggest looking into the demographics closer to find the answer on why we appear to be lagging behind. The infant mortality rate has increased not because of the (lack of) US medical system but because obesity, drug use, and teen pregnancy. These factors lead to premature births. Lack of education is killing our babies not the medical system.

The infant mortality rate has increased not because of the (lack of) US medical system but because obesity, drug use, and teen pregnancy.

And just how many of those pregnant teens do you suppose have hospitalization insurnace to cover the costs of a pregnancy?

Jeff

FACT: Teen pregnancies in the US have declined since 1990. See the Guttmacher Institute reports.

Since when is education about our health and how to preserve it NOT part of the medical system? If our so called first class system focused MORE on education and prevention, we would be healthier and our costs would be lower.

Lastly, the US is rapidly losing its place as the technological and scientific leader in research. China, India, and even Korea, are leaping past us, particularly in areas where our scientists are constrained by restrictions put in place for political reasons.

To add to Grace's comment -

We are behind other countries on birth control management, breast cancer, cervical cancer research.

Our mandatory immunizations are causing more harm than good and our pharmaceuticals are rushed through the FDA by the drug companies so fast that we are constantly in jeopardy of long term harm.

In addition, one of the reasons for high infant mortality, and death due to childbirth is because of the push for cesarean sections, which bring in the big bucks as opposed to vaginal births.

Mainstream media sources are not the best place for the "real" story.

Well, now I am certainly confused. Not knowing many of you, I sometimes wonder if the problem of this type of discourse is smacking me in the face. It's not always easy to tell if comments are meant in jest or with a bit of sarcasm.

Please let me apologize in advance if I offend anyone here when I ask a question regarding a comment. Please understand that I am taking everything at face value and may not be "reading between the lines."

I do not look to statistics to tell the whole story as I adhere to the old saying of "figures lie and liars figure". Raw stats are helpful but once someone uses them to enforce their position I become skeptical.

Mr. Endress,

You quoted Mr. Call saying "Quote:The infant mortality rate has increased not because of the (lack of) US medical system but because obesity, drug use, and teen pregnancy. "

Then you asked "And just how many of those pregnant teens do you suppose have hospitalization insurnace to cover the costs of a pregnancy? "

It seemed like you are saying that the number is high. Is your question rhetorical? I ask because I think that the answer would be interesting.
I'm also assuming you mean the cost of pre-natal care and delivery since I'm pretty sure no insurance covers the cost of getting pregnant (tongue in cheek).

It would seem like the number would be higher for post teen pregnancy as young women who are no longer covered by their parent's plan are the likely candidates. Young women in their early 20's who are not still in school would be the least likely to have found a job with medical benefits.

Ms. O'Malley,

I'm not sure if you are saying that we are doing a better or worse job of educating teenagers. Seems like some are learning.

You said "FACT: Teen pregnancies in the US have declined since 1990. See the Guttmacher Institute reports.

Since when is education about our health and how to preserve it NOT part of the medical system? If our so called first class system focused MORE on education and prevention, we would be healthier and our costs would be lower."

Your next paragrpah says "Lastly, the US is rapidly losing its place as the technological and scientific leader in research. China, India, and even Korea, are leaping past us, particularly in areas where our scientists are constrained by restrictions put in place for political reasons."

Again, I'm with you, but with reservations. What does rapidly losing its' place as leader mean? Have other countries closed what was once a wide gap or have we dropped from 1st to 4th, or further? Are you saying China, India, and even Korea have passed us? "Are leaping past" sounds like they are in the process of passing us. I am also curious how you reached those conclusions. Your comment about our scientists being constrained for political reasons is where I absolutley agree with you if you are talking about stem cell research.

Ms. Kinsella,

Are you saying that Mr. Call's internet sources are no good because you disagree with them or because you can prove they are wrong? It doesn't seem fair to question his sources and then turn around and state that other opinions can be found on the internet. As much as I detest the spin put out by moguls who push their agenda, individuals who post on the net can also have an agenda. Your suggestion of basing your opinions on info obtained from a more one on one format can really skew the numbers. If two people go to the same doctor for the same disease they may end up with results that are completely opposite.

It also depends on where the person talking is coming from. There is a doctor at Lakewood Hospital who is despised by most of the nurses who work with him. He is overbearing, demanding and rude. His patients will tell you he is a warm , caring doctor with a fantastic bedside manner. If you drop the patient and nurse reference you might think that there is no way it could be the same person. But if you ask one of those nurses who they would want if they became the patient and the doctor I'm talking about wins hands down. Their reason is simple. He demands the best for his patients. He won't accept excuses.

I guess what I'm asking is isn't it possible that we have a pretty good system here that has some major problems? I read this thread and it appears that if one person points out problems, others jump to defend our system. If others point out some of the excellent parts then they are quickly rebuffed with "others have it better".

A crack baby born three months premature can run up a million dollar bill in a hurry and the mother may not come back once she leaves the hospital. The baby's mother lives next door to a single 25 year old woman who earns two grand two much for governmental health care and she loses her baby because she couldn't afford pre-natal care. It's crazy. We have made such fantastic advancements that we can save the first baby but haven't figured out a way to guarantee that the 2nd would have lived with a 50 dollar pre-natal visit.

Sigh, I need a drink.

Kevin -

Some of the other sources for info are very easy to find on the internet, such as the BBC which is also corporate, but not US corporations.
Mother Jones, The Nation, Ms. Magazine (not on the internet), Bitch Magazine (not on the internet) the "Our Bodies Ourselves" health care manual.

For other health care issues, Michael Moore also has a web site.

Some might not like it, but I tend to have more faith in entities that are supported by things other than advertising. Mnay of these entities are not skewed by advertising dollars.

Studies that are funded by drug companies mean nothing to me.

I have a chronic, fatal disease. Believe me, I have used every resource at my disposal to make major life giving and life ending decisions.

I depend on independent sources more than most people because they have no monetary investment.

JMHO.

Ms. Kinsella,

Thank you for your reply. Now I understand, it is not corporations that concern you, only if they are US corporations.

I plead ignorance regarding the remaining publications. Do those magazines not take advertising?

Regarding Michael Moore, he made some valid points regarding some of the faults of our system but it would be naive to believe that he does not have an agenda or a monetary interest.

You closed with it being "JMHO". Fortunately we are all still permitted to express our own opinion. Mine is simply that the American system has its faults, but many medical advancements have been made here. The pharmaceutical companies are certainly profit motivated, but I'm alive today because of some of the drugs they developed.

I sincerely wish you the best with your medical struggles.

Kevin -

Valid questions and points.

I will say that Ms. and Bitch do not take advertisements, they are entirely reader supported.

The BBC and out of country sources, while the may be biased by their own advertising agenda, do give us a view from the other side of our lens.

I am glad that our medical sciences have kept you alive.

For me, unfortunately, the long term side effects of my "cure" have made my life very painful and difficult. I kick myself daily for listening to some of "them", instead of my own knowledge, gleaned through intensive research.

Have a beautiful Saturday. What a gorgeous day!