>>>The quality of health care provided in the United States is superior to the rest of the world.
>>
>>This is not true. General health care is below many european standards as access to health care is much easier and cheaper up here. You are refering to EMERGENCY CARE which indeed the US has done very good.

>I'm not refering to costs, I'm talking about the quality of the care. The medical advancements are vastly superior in America as compared to the world.

Quality of what care ?? If you're talking about emergency care, I might agree. If you're talking about general medical care I strongly disagree. As dragan pointed out, even in a relatively poor eastern european country health care is easier accessible.

As for the advancements, compared to the world in general, you're right. But if you compare it to the rest of the western world, I'd be very carefull is saying this. Earning my bread and butter in health care in europe and north america I know quite a few examples where this is not true. There are excelent research centres in europe and japan and there are new technologies developped everywhere. Many simply ignore the fact that for example laser technology to correct eye vision was developped in russia, advanced radiation therapy for treating cancer was developped in sweden. The first IVF - baby was born in the UK.

There is also a lot to say about ethics and lack of governmental regulations in health care as well, which leads to very unhealthy situations. As an example, IVF treatments in the US regulary are transferring up to as many as 6 or 7 embryos just to give a higher pregnancy rate (it can be used commercially to gain more $$) but can lead to enourmous complications (a human is not build to carry 6 babies). The commercialisation of IVF clinics also has a negative effect on providing unbiased and reliable statistics (which can attract outsiders for false reasons). Most clinics in europe only allow for on or two embryos transferred because of decreasing the risks and decreasing the overall costs in health care (prevention).

>>>If it weren't you'd hear a lot more about Americans leaving the States for emergency treatments.
>>
>>Many americans do not know much about the world outside of the US.
>
>???

Meaning, that many americans are not aware of new treatments applied elswhere in the world.

>>Better results, It depends how you measure them. If you take into account that life expectancy is lower, infant mortality rates are higher at roughly twice the price of health care in the rest of the western world, you can't make that conclusion: http://www.calnurse.org/media-center/in-the-news/2007/january/page.jsp?itemID=29183288
>
>Again, I'm not talking costs I'm referring only to the quality of the care that is possible to receive in the US.

Again, see definition of quality of care. Did you read the link??

>>>We should be able to improve the system here without resorting to the government who can't run anything cost-effectively.
>>
>>A big assumption that totally ignores that now the big bucks are now getting into the doctors and insurance pockets.
>
>I want big bucks going into doctors' pockets, it attracts better qualified people to the profession.

I don't buy that. To be a excellent doctor, you have to have made that choice a long time ago, since you need many years of training. Even up here the salaries are well rewarding, but not so much that you can buy a villa of 10 million bucks. Good doctors are good doctors because they are very dedicated to their job and not for the money. The other side of the coin might be that it will attract less qualified doctors just being greedy.

You did not react, however on the statement that the big money is flowing into the hands of the insurance company (which probably is the biggest problem, as noted in the link above).

>>How would you explain that in other countries the costs are roughly half of that in the US, providing better health care ??

>Firstly, the costs are not 1/2. The full effect of higher taxes are not calculated correctly. Lost interest and government waste are not accounted for, only payments to doctors/hospitals. Secondly there's the cost in human health/lives due to the waiting lists.

Any link to back that up? I don't see the effect of taxes here, nor do I see the point of governmental waste as the government up here is not directly insuring the patient, but only makes the rules for the insurance companies. If you divide the governmental costs of making the policy by 16 million people (holland) the costs must be neglible. The same applies to the UK.

>>You americans have the "The government cannot run anything cost - efficient" syndrom.

>We have experience with our government, and we know the results when it gets its hands on our money. The waste is more than many countries' GDP.

And (insurance) companies take advantage of that "experience". I take it you're being fooled.

>>It is not reflected in the worlds experience of hundred of millions citizens accross the world.
>
>Sure it is, you simply choose to ignore it. <- This will lead us to a much different thread so I'll stop here.

Ignore what? I did not stumble against anything that says that the US provides better general health care (not to be confused with emergency care) at lower costs. So how can I ignore something that is not there. Care to share a link?

Did you read the link?? I live in a country where public health care is a fact. Up here there are not many people doubting that is a service that the government should regulate, just like in other european countries. I know for sure that my expenses for insurances are much and much less than a comparable case in the US.

Closer to home, just ask any canadian up here, how they feel your health care is comparing to theirs.

>Faster FDA approval = less research and lawyer time (this is something I really like about European systems). Hence the margins improve. However, this will not work without tort reform. The money will simply be shifted from research to legal.

I doubt if that is going to work. Drug companies will increase their margin for the sole reason to make money. If they have a revolutionary drug, they essentially will price their drugs in such way, they get the most money out of it. Research cost are about irrelevant here (they just use that argument to get you fooled). I've been in this industry for a couple of years and I know how they work. The only reason I can see is that the same research is more attractive to the competition, because competition is the only reason for price regulation. However, I wonder in what extent this would be the case.

But I certainly agree with laywers involved in medical procedures.

>>and your treating doctor still has that ferrari in his mind...
>
>Mine drives a Porche.

My former GP drives a peugot 205CC after about 30 years of service. Most of his carreer just a small car (more practical). A very down to earth man. No millionare.



>>
>>Walter,