2002-2003 preventable death rates

[mimartin]

CBS News

 

US News and World Report

 

 

The first person I thought of when reading this was True_Avery for some reason.

 

Here is the full list of how the 19 countries ranked in their 2002-2003 preventable death rates:

 

1. France

2. Japan

3. Australia

4. Spain

5. Italy

6. Canada

7. Norway

8. The Netherlands

9. Sweden

10. Greece

11. Austria

12. Germany

13. Finland

14. New Zealand

15. Denmark

16. U.K.

17. Ireland

18. Portugal

19. U.S. [/Quote]

Yea, USA.

 

Those of you in the U.K. don’t get overly excited you are 16 out 19 in the study. Our neighbors to the north’s “so-called” terrible health care system managed to place 6, while the “best medical care” in the world placed dead last. I wonder why this is.

But the slow decline in U.S. preventable deaths "has coincided with an increase in the uninsured population," write the researchers.[/Quote] Why do you think this is? Do you have any recommendations on how to improve this statistic for your country? How are you going to prevent yourself from ending up a statistic in the next report? I am off to run as that is how I hope to prevent myself from being apart of the next study.

[True_Avery]

Fact: The United States is the only wealthy, industrialized nation that does not ensure universal coverage.

http://www.iom.edu/?id=17848

 

41st in Infant Mortality Rate (6.37 deaths/1,000 live births)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

 

45th in Life expectancy at birth

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

 

Human Development Index

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_hum_dev_ind-economy-human-development-index

 

Those of you in the U.K. don’t get overly excited you are 16 out 19 in the study. Our neighbors to the north’s “so-called” terrible health care system managed to place 6, while the “best medical care” in the world placed dead last. I wonder why this is.

After looking at these statistics for years, I am beginning to consider any argument calling Universal Health Care a failed system void due to overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We rank 0 out of 19 wealthy, industrialized countries? That is terrible. Every country on that list but United States has Universal Health Care, and the top 10 on that list are all considered the best places to currently live in the world as far as Health goes.

 

United States can call Canada whatever it wants. But, numbers do not lie. Canada is 6, we are 19. All we have going for us at this point is an overwhelming ego.

 

United States in last place in 2002-2003, with 109 deaths per 100,000 people, down from 15th place in 1997-1998. If the United States were able to match top-performing France, Japan, and Australia, 101,000 fewer people would die annually, the study found.

France, Japan, and Australia all have Universal Health Care. If we could improve our own system and match their rate, we would save roughly 101,000 people? That is a lot of people in my opinion. United States also fell back 4 spots in only a handful of years as well.

 

Two big factors contribute to the country's poor showing: the 47 million people lacking health insurance and the high cost of healthcare even for many who have coverage. "We are the only country in the study that doesn't have insurance for the whole population," says Cathy Schoen, a senior vice president at the Commonwealth Fund, a healthcare think tank that funded the study. In addition, high cost-sharing can lead people to delay getting necessary care, she says. "Other countries don't have that barrier."

I'll quote that again:

"We (USA) are the only country in the study that doesn't have insurance for the whole population."

19. U.S.

19.

At this point it doesn't matter if Universal Health Care is the answer or not. Unites States needs to pick itself the hell up. Whatever the plan is, someone needs to stand up and change this system. America's ego can only get it so far.

 

Why do you think this is?

I think it is appalling that one of the largest countries in the world cannot seem to take the time to help it's own people, but seems to have some fixation with "helping" the Middle East.

 

Do you have any recommendations on how to improve this statistic for your country?

Change the system. It is apparent that our current system is not working. Universal Health Care or not, something needs to be done.

 

How are you going to prevent yourself from ending up a statistic in the next report?

For my own safety and the safety of a family I may one day have, I may as well start looking in to moving to another country. There are plenty of better places to live than this dump, and the numbers prove that.

 

I think a lot can be said of country when you look at how it treats it's less fortunate.

 

The first person I thought of when reading this was True_Avery for some reason.

Yey!

[Achilles]

Hmmm...I had been kicking around the idea of starting a "The U.S. is the greatest country in the world?" thread for a few days, but I see now that someone else beat me to the punch.

 

Yes, it seems that for almost every objective standard of human development we have measures for, the U.S. falls far short of the top spot (unless you count negative measures such as "highest infant morality in the developed world" or "per capita spending on things that are used to kill people", etc).

 

The unfortunate reality is that change will only happen when it becomes self-evident that change needs to occur. Everything else hinges on when that realizations sinks in. Thanks for the thread/info.

[mur'phon]

Could you please link to the studdy? I'm quite surprised to see norway at 7.

[mimartin]

Could you please link to the study? I'm quite surprised to see Norway at 7.

Sorry, I cannot right now without paying for it. I can give you a link to the original study done in 2003. 2003 Study It has a link to the new information, but the link is not working for me.

 

I can give you a link to the press release form their University, University of London: London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Press Release

 

If you want further information try searching

"Measuring the Health of Nations: Updating an Earlier Analysis," Ellen Nolte and Martin McKee of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine[/Quote]

 

Hmmm...I had been kicking around the idea of starting a "The U.S. is the greatest country in the world?" thread for a few days, but I see now that someone else beat me to the punch.

Not my intention to demean the good ole U.S. of A., I love my home country. However, saying you have the best health care in the world and having the best health care are two completely different things. IMO People’s lives should come before politics. If France, Japan, Australia, Canada… can all provide their citizens with health care and show the results from it why can’t we? I do not see it bankrupting their countries. Are their leaders so much smarter than our? (Please, do not answer that )

 

France, Japan, and Australia all have Universal Health Care. If we could improve our own system and match their rate, we would save roughly 101,000 people? That is a lot of people in my opinion.

QFT

I would hope that is a lot of people in anyone's opinion.

[Achilles]

Not my intention to demean the good ole U.S. of A., I love my home country.

I think it's entirely possible to love your country and be critical of your government at the same time .

 

However, saying you have the best health care in the world and having the best health care are two completely different things. IMO People’s lives should come before politics. If France, Japan, Australia, Canada… can all provide their citizens with health care and show the results from it why can’t we?

I think many americans are leery of having to rely on socialist systems *cough*police, fire, libraries, postal service, military, medical care for government employees *cough*. And rightly so. I don't think we have any examples of socialist systems that have had any measure of success in the U.S. *cough*police, fire, libraries, postal service, military, medical care for government employees *cough* [/sarcasm].

 

I do not see it bankrupting their countries. Are their leaders so much smarter than our? (Please, do not answer that )

No, I would bet dollars to donuts that their leaders are not. It might be arguable that their citizens are, but that's another matter altogether.

[Jae Onasi]

Why don't we have national health care?

a. People are afraid of having their care limited by the government and not having choice of doctors, hospitals, etc. Some doctors/clinics/hospitals are great, some are not. So, people voted not to have nationalized health care by voting in people who would not support national health care. Clinton tried to push for it in the early 90's, but got stonewalled by others. Part of that was because it was a very convoluted system and smacked of HMOs. HMOs were getting accused (in some cases rightly) of restricting care in order to protect profits/prevent losses at that point, and people feared having something like that happen to them, too.

b. Insurance companies make huge amounts of money and have lobbyists in D.C. making sure their ability to make a huge profit (sometimes at the expense of the patient) is not impaired in any way.

 

If we could just extend the Medicare program from the 'elderly' to everyone, we'd definitely pay more in taxes, but it's a system that works already for millions of patients and many, many providers. It doesn't restrict choice (unless someone voluntarily signs up for an HMO Medicare), and it wouldn't be so confusing to patients and providers as some of the plans I've seen proposed over the years.

[SilentScope001]

Meanwhile, the world death rate is still holding steady at 100%...

 

For crying out loud, does it really matter that America is less 'awesomer' than other nations? If you like the other nations and want to save your own skin, move (I sure I will eventually too). But until then, let's try to perseve our nation rather than selflishly rob from it. I would rather forgoe universal health care and try to stop our budget deficit from going any higher than usual.

[Corinthian]

Silent's right. America already is the best nation on Earth, this is just a minor setback. Everybody's gotta die sometime, Red.

[Achilles]

America already is the best nation on Earth

What criteria are you using?

[mimartin]

I would rather forgoe universal health care and try to stop our budget deficit from going any higher than usual.

Didn't we forgo universal health care in the 90's? How much has our budget deficit improved since the 90's?

[SilentScope001]

Didn't forgo universal health care in the 90's? How much has our budget deficit improved since the 90's?

 

In the 90's, the Republicans axed universal health care coverage. In fact, it was said that the deadlock between Republicans and Democrats that really led to the budget surplus. But it was doomed not to last anyway, if the Republicans didn't pass the tax cuts, then the Democrats would have us pay "health care", and the surplus goes 'poof'.

 

You just have to roll with the punches, but there are some alternates I rather prefer than others...

[True_Avery]

Silent's right. America already is the best nation on Earth, this is just a minor setback.

Under who's opinion and information? Yours? Meanwhile, the numbers say that there are a number of other countries around the world where people live longer, get better education, live under healthier conditions. America is far from the "best" nation on Earth.

 

Give me figures that say otherwise and I'll reconsider my opinion.

 

Everybody's gotta die sometime, Red.

Indeed, but it is how long people want to live that is considered. I'm sure you would like to live your life to the fullest, instead of getting a heart attack at 50 and finding out your insurance is not going to cover you due to a pre-existing condition, only leading your "pre-existing condition" to worsen and lead you to an early grave.

 

It doesn't matter much until it happens to you. People with selfish stances only start to complain when they find themselves in the middle of the problem.

 

For crying out loud, does it really matter that America is less 'awesomer' than other nations?

This isn't about how 'awesome" America is or isn't. It is about how living in some other countrys gives you a better chance to live longer and healthier. And how do they do it? Well, it just so happens they all have Universal Health Care in their system. We are ranked 0 out of 19, and we are the only ones without the system. It may just be a MASSIVE coincidence, but it seems that the system works as far as helping people live longer and healthier when it is done right. If the American government cannot be trusted to do that, then I don't trust my life with them at all. And if I cannot trust my own government to at least try and help me live longer and healthier, then I don't see why I should stay here.

[Jae Onasi]

The people in gov't made a choice in the '80's and '90's--cut taxes over increasing taxes for universal health care.

 

Universal health care is not all it's cracked up to be. I had to wait 3 weeks to get gall bladder surgery when I needed it, and the delay was only because of necessary tests to make sure all was well before moving forward. My friend in Canada had to wait 7 _months_ in severe pain and significant nausea and vomiting problems. A friend of mine knew a woman in England who died of cervical cancer because the wait for surgery was so long that her cancer metastasized. Those 2 situations would not have happened in the US.

 

Now that being said, I would like to see some more comprehensive, if not universal, coverage for US citizens. I just don't want people to think it's the cure-all for what ails the American health problem, because it won't be. We will have greater access for many people, but we will experience changes in health care delivery, surgery wait times, ability to access advanced treatments, and so on as a result.

[Achilles]

I had to wait 3 weeks to get gall bladder surgery when I needed it, and the delay was only because of necessary tests to make sure all was well before moving forward.

And if the U.S. had universal health care (UHC) for all citizens, do you think this wait would have been shorter, longer, or about the same? Considering that we have millions of people not in the system, I don't think it makes much sense to try to make this an apples-to-apples comparison.

 

My friend in Canada had to wait 7 _months_ in severe pain and significant nausea and vomiting problems.

So if the U.S. had UHC, it would automatically mean that everyone would have to wait 7 months as well? All UHC systems are created equal? It's amazing that Canada could have such a low standard of health care and still manage to score so much higher than us.

 

A friend of mine knew a woman in England who died of cervical cancer because the wait for surgery was so long that her cancer metastasized.

Same points as above. Surely England's rank will someday soon be corrected, now that we know that the reality is that their medical system is slower than cancer.

 

Those 2 situations would not have happened in the US.

Well, not if you happen to live in the U.S. and have health insurance. I imagine similar situations happen all the time for those that don't.

 

Now that being said, I would like to see some more comprehensive, if not universal, coverage for US citizens. I just don't want people to think it's the cure-all for what ails the American health problem, because it won't be. We will have greater access for many people, but we will experience changes in health care delivery, surgery wait times, ability to access advanced treatments, and so on as a result.

I agree. No system is perfect. However, if we are truly the greatest county in the world, then I have every confidence that we are capable of building a health care system that would be the standard for all others, rather than the laughing stock amongst all others.

[Totenkopf]

One wonders if they include the number of partial birth abortions in that figure (yeah, I know it's unlikely/not the case).

 

I agree. No system is perfect. However, if we are truly the greatest county in the world, then I have every confidence that we are capable of building a health care system that would be the standard for all others, rather than the laughing stock amongst all others.

 

Right, and communism would truly work if only American libs were allowed to implement it.

[SilentScope001]

This isn't about how 'awesome" America is or isn't. It is about how living in some other countrys gives you a better chance to live longer and healthier. And how do they do it? Well, it just so happens they all have Universal Health Care in their system.

 

But we argue with different "warrants", or assumptions.

 

You argue that we should change our system to live longer. I don't believe in living longer.

 

And that Universal Health Care is too expensive for the USA. The fate of the USA is more important than that of me, in that if the USA falls or loses the "World Power" status, we all suffer (me too as I need to find a new place to move). I am against increasing the national debt needlessly, and UHC seems to fit that to a T.

[mimartin]

And that Universal Health Care is too expensive for the USA.

Why is it too expensive for the USA, but not too expensive for France, Japan, Australia, Spain, Italy, Canada, Norway, The Netherlands, Sweden, Greece, Austria, Germany, Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, The United Kingdom, Ireland or Portugal?

 

I am against increasing the national debt needlessly, and UHC seems to fit that to a T.

How do you know it would increase the national debt? Wouldn’t this be like a huge tax cut for corporations, small business and families? We are always told that tax cuts simulate the economy and then lower the national debt from the increase in the economy.

 

Something has to be done with the soaring heath care cost in this country. The GNP cannot sustain the strain these cost are putting on it. So if we do nothing we will not be a super power either.

 

So we can provide a means for everyone to be insured, thus eliminate us paying extra for the uninsured or we can stop providing medical care for those that cannot afford it.

 

Why can’t we refuse medical care to those that just refuse to get medical insurance? I am not talking about those that qualify for government assisted medical insurance. I’m talking about those that would rather drive a new car than pay for medical insurance. So little Susie broke her arm, your daddy/mommy should have bought medical insurance instead of getting that new boat/car, too bad for you little Susie. Why should I have to pay more for medical procedures/medical insurance because others are too selfish to take care of their own needs?

 

Personally, I believe universal health care is the better alternative, but refusing to provide services to the uninsured would also lower medical cost too, and allow us to be the same super power we are today.

[Corinthian]

I agree with refusing medical care to those who can't pay/aren't insured.

[El Sitherino]

I agree with refusing medical care to those who can't pay/aren't insured.

Funny, I don't.

[mur'phon]

I agree with refusing medical care to those who can't pay/aren't insured.

 

If people made the decicion to be poor the same way some make the decicion to be uninsured, I could agre with you. Since people don't choose to be poor (for the most part), a system like this would mean a lot of people would die needlessly. Saving lives>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>paying less tax at least in my book.

[Web Rider]

I think at some point the Stalin saying of "One death is a tragedy, a million death's is a statistic." applies here.

 

When a country, like say #1 Japan, has a very low preventable death rate, it's easier to sympathize with it and when it increases want to come up with a way to make it go back down. However when a country like #19 USA has such a huge death rate, it's harder for people to sympathize for that many people, and it's easier to treat it as a statistic than as a tragedy that should be prevented.

 

For a frame of reference, lets all count to(I believe somebody mentioned a little over 100k earlier in the thread), 100,000 on our fingers, or maybe we'll just time it on our watch or clock. You're going to be waiting for a long time. Even if you counted as fast as seconds go by, you'll be counting for roughly a day and a half. That's a very long time to count. Now, if we try to imagine each of those seconds was a dead person, without dropping into a deep depression, I think we can all say that we probably can't sympathize for every one of them.

 

As for national health care and the like, I think it should be noted that simply saying: "everyone has health care" does not mean ANYTHING. Making sure people have the health care is the complicated part, not all doctors, hospitals, or even small medical facilities are created equal. We all know that we're likely to find better treatment in a big fancy place than a dinky small-town place. The united States is VERY populous compared to EVERY nation on that list, and the only nation that rivals the US in size, which is the second issue in national health care, is Canada.

 

It is much easier to provide for people, be it your mother or your country, when you are close to them. Which, much like police, brings us to enforcement, how do we ensure that all the people in those little nowhere towns such as Green River, Utah(a real town), get the best care the government can provide. I'm sure we could take a hint from Canada's playbook on how to do this, and if anyone here from Canada, perferably a small town or is well aware of the situation of small towns, can inform on how Canada ensures this care equality, I'd be glad to hear it.

 

Because I don't really have a solution, I can't come up with what should be included in every facility, I don't know how far from a town a facility should be located to say it qualifies as being within "reasonable distance" for any medical procedure covered by the government mandated heath coverage. I don't know where the money should come from, which taxes should or shouldn't be raised in order to pay for it without damaging the economy or cutting too far into other services.

If people made the decicion to be poor the same way some make the decicion to be uninsured' date=' I could agre with you. Since people don't choose to be poor (for the most part), a system like this would mean a lot of people would die needlessly. Saving lives>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>paying less tax at least in my book.[/quote']

 

From my experience, there ARE people who choose to be poor, they live off government subsidies, and know how to play the system to prevent them from losing that money or ever working. You can choose not to believe me, that these people are truly living in dire straits, but there are many people, especially in my home town who are able to make quite the living on the backs of taxpayers.

 

Which I see as the primary problem with government mandated care. Those who are most likely to use it, aren't going to be the ones suffering under higher taxes imposed by the new programs. Those 40 million people in the US who are uninsured are largely the poor. And the poor don't pay taxes. And since the rich can afford most taxes, as well as find ways out of much of their taxes, the health coverage, designed to benefit everyone, is going to mainly benefit those who are already getting government care, because yes, when you are "poor" enough, the government pays your bills already, and put an increased financial strain on the middle class.

 

Be it increased sales tax, luxury taxes or income taxes. The rich will still have the money to afford it all, the poor will benefit and be little affected by the costs, and the middle class, those who pay taxes between the 15,000 to 199,000(because I believe 200k is the top 1 or 5%, ie, the rich), will be the most impacted by any kind of tax increase needed to pay for the program.

 

Now, I would, much as any other, love to tear into the massive military budget, but I don't believe that nationalized health care alone is going to solve health care problems. I would much rather direct every last penny of a 10% tax increase to education, which it's my belief will solve most of our(the US's) problems much faster than giving medical care to the uninsured(who already get a lot of it free because they're poor).

 

Who has insurance is a great statistic for the insurance companies, but it is a VERY bad stick to measure with in terms of who is actually receiving health care. This is a little bit opinion a little bit experiance, so, no sources to back it up, just me.

[Point Man]

I have some questions about the methodology in this report.

Death was considered preventable if it shouldn't have occurred with timely and effective healthcare.

How many of these deaths are due to patients not having insurance?

 

How many are due to living in a rural area where ambulance response times are high? Many of those countries listed have a much greater population density than the US. How does this come into play?

 

How many are due to refusal to see a doctor? Forgive the generalization, but American males are notorious for denying health problems.

 

Yes, there is a correlation between the increase in uninsured rate and our falling down on the list, but that does not prove casusation.

[John Galt]

Interesting statistics.

 

I wholeheartedly oppose universal health care. I believe that medical treatment should be decided by the patient and his/her doctor. The problems I see with the medical field stem from too much government involvement, not too little of it.

 

I think the FDA should be abolished, but companies should be forced to print the ingredients of their products clearly on the packaging(to prevent consumer fraud). FDA testing is expensive and time consuming, meaning that innovation in medicine is practically limited to huge corporations that can afford approval procedures. Besides, people scrutinize their medications, regardless of whether they're FDA approved or not, and we naturally distrust generic medications(and all generic products). That being said, the choice of medications issued to a patient should be made by the doctor and pharmacist. Aside from preventing fraud, which is a universal duty, medical care is none of the government's business.

 

The courts also need to be streamlined in such a way that frivolous malpractice lawsuits don't end up before a jury of sheep. Our bill of rights guarantees trial by a jury of our peers, and the average American is by no means qualified to determine complex procedural issues often involved in malpractice lawsuits. Therefore, I present a very simple twofold solution. First, the losing party should be forced to pay for ALL court costs, including the other attorney's fees. Second, I think a malpractice court should be established to determine whether a case is worthy of proceding to a full-blown court battle. The jury in this preliminary court should be composed entirely of doctors, to avoid the pathos-driven arguments that tend to sway American juries.

 

Eliminating the FDA and changing malpractice court procedures would go a long way toward eliminating the corporate stranglehold on medicine and reducing frivolous malpractice lawsuits, thereby fostering competition in the pharmaceutical business and easing pressure on doctors(eliminating otherwise frivolous tests and fostering a closer doctor-patient relationship).

[Web Rider]

I think the FDA should be abolished, but companies should be forced to print the ingredients of their products clearly on the packaging(to prevent consumer fraud). FDA testing is expensive and time consuming, meaning that innovation in medicine is practically limited to huge corporations that can afford approval procedures. Besides, people scrutinize their medications, regardless of whether they're FDA approved or not, and we naturally distrust generic medications(and all generic products). That being said, the choice of medications issued to a patient should be made by the doctor and pharmacist. Aside from preventing fraud, which is a universal duty, medical care is none of the government's business.

 

while that's nice, I don't think the average person, American or otherwise, knows what those ingredients are, how they will specifically affect their body, or even if they will do anything for them at all.

 

You are bascially asking the average person to have a grad-school level of chemical engineering, human phisiology, and biologiy. This is why the FDA was set up, to check for all these things. Even if you're saying the doctor and pharmacist are supposed to help you make the decision, then you're just passing the buck from the patient or the FDA to the doctor/pharmacist.

 

That's a dang lot of information for one person to know. Which is the entire purpose of the FDA, to get lots of people with this knowledge together and run tests or make sure others run tests so that the chemicals do not have deadly side effects.

 

The FDA has certainly grown beyond it's bounds and is far too influenced by corporations, but, the inherant purpose, that is: to make sure medicines remain safe by utilizing knowledge even many well educated people do not have.