Originally posted by Mysti-ken:

Not comparing systems here, but every healthcare system including the best, will generate plenty of individual horror stories. What's the real relevance though in terms of the long-term health of the citizens of a country? IMO you have to look at the big picture to make that comparison. And in that comparison, and in most categories, the U.S. system doesn't seem to fare so well.



I've done a fair amount of travel across 5 of 7 continents, lived in Europe and worked both in Europe and Central America. I've seen the healthcare systems up close in Costa Rica, Mexico, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Hong Kong through either going there myself for some spat of intentinal disorder or sinus issue or having a close friend or family member partaking of the services in these areas where I was there to help translate.

NONE could compete with the quality of care I've seen given here in the US; most were along the lines of what I experienced in France or WORSE. I have heard this from countless other natives that have experienced the difference as well, or have had absolutlely abysmal treatment within state-sponsored programs.

The relevance is that long-term health has little to do with the healthcare given by a private program OR a socialized one. Why? Healthy citizens start with a quality LIFESTYLE, DIET and EXCERCISE. The US is almost piss-poor last on my list of civilized healthy places on the planet, and again, I've been to quite a few.

Healthcare, socialized or otherwise, will NEVER address the compounding issues of poor diet, little to no excercise and an stressful existance. This is why I see the US ranked where it is, and deservedly so.

Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
I haven't heard (and I for one am not claiming) that the quality of healthcare delivery in the U.S. isn't excellent. And those Americans who can afford to travel abroad probably have the ability to pay for healthcare anywhere they want to get it, so why not access it in the U.S. Is that however the point?



To boil it down, I believe in the age-old adage of "you get what you pay for". This is the concept I was trying to parallel here, in so many words.


Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
Perhaps the best, undoubtedly one of the best (and would certainly be better with malpractice reform) - but again, this statement applies only for those who have affordable access ... and according to everything I read these days, that number is shrinking at the same time as the population is growing. If this trend continues, what do you think would be the eventual outcome?



The bulk of the US population still has affordable access. I must concede that this number is shrinking and this trend is of SERIOUS concern. Change is needed, though "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" isn't my idea of the correct magnatude of change, hence my dislike for a leap towards socialized medicine. With malpractice reform (which would also drive some procedural reforms in the medical field), the cost would be substantially lower and more affordable.

Originally posted by Mysti-ken:
And as part of your next posting, may I respectfully suggest you disclose any bias by stating whether or not you have healtchare insurance coverage?



I certainly do; the best I've had since I've been alive. During the few times I didn't in my life, I didn't blame the government for this issue as I've never seen it as their responsibility to coddle and support me; that's my job. In short, I found better employment that had better benefits or worked it out where I could get on a plan that met my financial and personal needs.

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe