EuroJen

There is also "Medical Tourism" where Americans with no health insurance go to places like India and Thailand to receive care from Doctors trained in the USA who open private hospitals in the above mentioned countries. The costs to be treated are substantially lower and include recuperation at local resorts and beaches. I was travelling back from Munich in February and met a couple from Maryland had been to Romania to get Dental care--the price of flying to Europe and having several crowns and root canals was cheaper than their dental fees would have been in Baltimore.

On NPR a man testified before the Senate that he was self employed and one month after foolishly deciding to drop Blue Cross and Blue Shieldto save money, a severe Mitral Valve Proplase was found and he only had 12 months to live. The hospitalwhere he lived in Raliegh, NC would not lower their fees($250,000) to what they would have gotten had he still been insured and so they went to India for $6,000 and had the surgery, RN's at the bedside 24/7, gourment meals for him and his girlfriend who went along, and two weeks recuperation post-operatively at a five star resort! They paid the $6,000 on a VISA card and said they would do it again. By the way the fee quoted included airfare as well.

So I guess we do have choices.......no matter what we have been told, the USA is not the best healthcare system. Our personnel are well trained but if you cannot afford the costs it does not do much good. As a nurse I do not make any where near what a doctor makes but I am would love to have my skills accessible to all Americans.

sjj

smueller and RobJame are talking about different things. Except in deprived parts of the country, medical care in the US is very good if you have a good insurance policy, but not otherwise. If you don't have insurance or if your insurance company is unethical, you're in real trouble even if your docter is a modern day William Osler. To deny this is to deny the obvious. I think this is behind RobJame's feeling that the health system in the US is inadequate.

danon

"Drugs like Interferon, Glivec and Aricept are readily available in the US."

Yes, but who gets them ?
Various statistics can and have been interpreted in many ways. There is no doubt in my mind that for people with large sums of money there is no better care available than in the top US facilities . Rich from around the world
do not seek medical help in hospitals in southern Italy or norther England
-they have no need for government assistance.
For people who cannot get the care they need because they have no health coverage the statistical averages are
meaningless.

A friend of mine has been on Interferon for almost a year ( melanoma) and recently had brain surgery - all covered by the national health plan ( not UK).

tomboy

logos999: I had thought the intent of the sentence would be clear. By referencing Euro-health, in 10 letters and a hyphen I thought I would communicate my interest in knowing the characteristics of the various systems. I thought it would be necessary to itemize the names of each and every country in Europe (what is the EU now, 40 something countries?). But if you're not familiar with the names, let me know and I'll list them for you. It will, however, take considerably more than 10 letters and a hyphen.

logos999

>itemize the names of each and every country in Europe
Yes, please do so, it helps to have a list.

logos999

It would also help, if you could list the specifics of each and every countrys system. Makes the whole subject a lot clearer. Thanks!

robjame

thank you sjj

smueller - I really think that you don't get it
You think I asked for "evidence that the quality of US healthcare is not inferior to that of Europe."

I did not. If you read my posts I actually said (twice and this is the third time) "For those who actually have inclusive, free-choice coverage in the US, that coverage is often superior to the base level coverage in Europe."

On the other hand my questions were:
"Can anyone come up with a statistical analysis (not anecdotal) that supports the US non-system is superior?
the US achieves more economical healthcare?
that universal healthcare is wrong?"

...not the healthcare but the (NON)SYSTEM of healthcare >>> non-inclusive; varying in quality; insurance company run; dollar driven

...and of course logos999 is absolutely correct

Now I bet that you, bob and tom are all insured by one of the better plans(companies) (policies) as defined in Consumers Reportsa.
Me... to analyze my healthcare, all you have to know is that I am a Canadian in Ontario.

smueller

RobJame - Perhaps our responses are getting a bit muddled. The statement to which I was referring was the following - "Can anyone come up with a statistical analysis (not anecdotal) that supports the US non-system is superior?"

logos - I understand that there is no "European healthcare system," there are many systems. But there is such a thing as European-wide statistics and they can be compared to US national statistics.

Based on the comments in this thread, along with some internet reading, I understand that there are significant differences in European healthcare.

Apparently, the French healthcare system is substantially superior to the UK healthcare system. Yet, still, nearly 15,000 people died in Paris alone from a single heatwave. I don't believe that something as simple as a heatwave could kill that many Americans in a single city.

By the way, I came across a number of articles suggesting that the French despise the concept of "socialized medicine" almost as much as the Americans. Many French regard the British system as inferior "socialized medicine."

smueller

"to analyze my healthcare, all you have to know is I am a Canadian living in Ontario."

In other words, you have no choice.

I am not trying to put words into your mouth. If this is not what you mean, please elaborate.

smueller

My understanding of medical tourism is that the bulk of it is for cosmetic surgery, which is not covered by most US healthcare plans. Do many European plans differ in this regard?

Sorry for all the piecemeal responses, but it's hard to digest and respond to so many posters at once.

robjame

smueller- don't know where you're getting your 15000 Paris number - maybe you are right - I have just never seen that number. Please supply a link.

<<In other words, you have no choice.>>

Yup. You are right. I have no choice... I am covered...cradle to grave. No matter how rich or poor I am, employed or unemployed, sick or well, stupid or smart, lucky or unlucky, no matter who my parents are, no matter how many times I'm sick
I AM COVERED
No HMO no insurance company no fluke of nature, no accident
No matter what I do as long as I am a Canadian I can't uncover myself.

Now you understand what universal healthcare is.
And you know what? The same is true for all my neighbours, friends... in fact everybody. Wonderful, eh?

Now... go up to my 08/17/2007, 07:35 pm post and look at all the things that none of us will ever have to worry about.

logos999

Europe wide statistics can only give an average mixed picture of many different systems. Mix some good and not so good and the result won't be comparable to anything. I for example know the details of the German system, this could be compared to any other system. Other approaches don't lead to anything.

smueller

RobJame - What does covered mean? In the (exact) words of the Canadian Supreme Court "Access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare."

Just because you are on a list or have a card in your wallet does not mean that you will promptly receive high-quality healthcare. I have read that the Canadian system is rather stingy with promising new drugs.

I'm sure you are familiar with the Chauolli case, if not, Google the above quote.

My 15,000 for Paris was mistaken. That number was for all of France. I was citing the statistic off the top of my head. I should have checked. The numbers are 15,000 for France, and 35,000 for western Europe.

logos999

Well, you can put Germany, France and the UK on one side and compare it to the US, Canada and Mexico on the other side and see who "wins", because that's similar to what you're actually doing when you say "Europe".
In Germany there's a mixed system of "privately" and public "health care system" insured people. (And unisured people as well). One system works very similar to the one in the US, the other is governemt regulated. If you make enough money or are self employed you have a choice of which system to join.

basingstoke2

The 15000 figure of excess deaths in France was a disaster that took a heatwave lasting about 8 weeks to attain. Some factors that contributed to the high numbers include a relative lack of air conditioning, lack of experience in how to cope with intense,prolonged heat and importantly that most of the victims were elderly - the most vulnerable population. France has a significantly higher percentage of its population over the age of 65 than the US (16% vs 12%). Thus a higher percentage of its population was at high risk compared to the US. There were also reports that some of the problem did have to do with the health care system in that many physicians were on vacation as were many of the family members that were caretakers for their elderly relatives.

robjame

"But let's not blow it out of proportion. . . . Every day people die of natural causes. You cannot claim that everybody who has died in the last eight or nine days dies of heat. Then everybody in the summer that dies will die of heat."

basingstoke2

robjame, in the case of the heatwave deaths in France, the 15000 figure (rounded up from 14800) are excess deaths, that is over and above the deaths that would have been expected in that time period. The deaths were a public health problem rather than a clinical problem. That is, those most vulnerable did not get to a health facility or know how to cope with prolonged heat of historic proportions - nothing like they would have experienced in their lifetime. There is little to suggest that those that did seek clinical help did not get it other than a general shortage of physicians many of whom were on vacation at that time.

danon

" those most vulnerable did not get to a health facility or know how to cope with prolonged heat of historic proportions - nothing like they would have experienced in their lifetime...
true, in the same heatwave only about 150 Spaniards died..they were used to heat or new what to do..

danon

"Just because you are on a list or have a card in your wallet does not mean that you will promptly receive high-quality healthcare.

How is high quality health-care defined?

'I have read that the Canadian system is rather stingy with promising new drugs"

where and what drugs?

Neil_Oz

I can't comment on the Canadian situation, but in the Australian public system waiting times are generally appropriate to the urgency of the situation. If I have a real need to, I'll get to see my GP same day and a specialist pretty quickly, and if I need hospitalisation they'll work the system to fast-track me. It may not always be as fast as I'd like, but if so that's a function of insufficient doctor numbers and under-funding of public hospitals, not of some inherent flaw in the system. Given that the government has been rolling in budget surpluses for some years (which it prefers to hoard for pork-barrelling in election years) those problems are fixable.

There's some delay while new drugs are assessed for inclusion in the subsidised scheme, but once approved their supply isn't artificially restricted. The worst case is that people needing them may have to pay full price pending their listing.

One exception to this was the abortion-inducing drug RU486, approval for which was being stalled by the Minister for Health, a devout Roman Catholic widely known as "the Mad Monk". Following widespread protests Parliament, in a non-party vote, stripped the minister of his power of final approval of new drugs and RU486 was listed shortly afterwards.

I suspect that no national system can meet all the demands likely to be placed on it by an ageing population demanding access to increasingly costly procedures and products. The challenge is to find the best compromise. As someone said, there's no indication that those of us with access to a system of universal coverage model, whatever its flaws, are clamouring to take up the US private care model. Overall we get a high standard of care, and whether we're well off, "working poor" or on social security benefits we can afford it.