US Healthcare study ranks Australia second best in developed world, while US comes in last
Australia's healthcare system has been ranked among the best in the developed world by a team of American researchers who have ranked their own country's system the worst.
Key points:
Overall the highest performers were UK, Australia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway
US ranked last overall and had the highest rate of mortality
But Australia ranked eighth for equity
In their study of 11 different national health care models, researchers at the New York-based Commonwealth Fund ranked Australia's mixed public-private system second best.
They concluded the United Kingdom's National Health Service was the best system overall, followed by Australia, then the Netherlands, with Norway and New Zealand sharing fourth place.
Comparing Australia and the other countries to their homeland, the authors said: "The US performs relatively poorly on population health outcomes, such as infant mortality and life expectancy at age 60."
In May, Mr Trump used a press conference alongside Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull in New York to suggest Australia's system was better than his country's.
"We have a failing healthcare," he said.
"And I shouldn't say this to our great gentleman and my friend from Australia, because you have better healthcare than we do."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-17/australian-healthcare-ranked-second-best-in-developed-world/8716326 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-17/australian-healthcare-ranked-second-best-in-developed-world/8716326)
The World Today/by Stephen Smiley
I think our healthcare system has its issues and is not perfect. I would not trade it for anything, it ensures a healthy country, with people able access health care when they need it. The govt is also realising the benefits of preventative medicine. We al contribute as a percentage of what we earn, you are encouraged to get private health cover but for anything life threatening you always get immediate care. I am a public patient so my wait times for services are longer but then most of them are free.
I paid plenty when I was able to work and my wife still pays so I feel it is a very fair system...perfect no...do I know I am not going to die because I can't afford health care absolutely.
One of the great things about Australia....and New Zealand's system is similar to ours
And yet our politicians from both sides are intent on converting our system to the American model, one tiny bit at a time. This would be a tragedy if we allow this to happen.
Indeed, it is not a perfect system, no system ever is perfect, but it is very affordable. I do have private health insurance because I'm working, I can afford it and don't want to burden the public system un-necessarily and thus keep it open to those who cannot afford private health insurance.
Quote from: Dan on July 19, 2017, 05:43:50 AM
And yet our politicians from both sides are intent on converting our system to the American model, one tiny bit at a time. This would be a tragedy if we allow this to happen.
Indeed, it is not a perfect system, no system ever is perfect, but it is very affordable. I do have private health insurance because I'm working, I can afford it and don't want to burden the public system un-necessarily and thus keep it open to those who cannot afford private health insurance.
And it is because of the generosity of spirit by people like yourself that help keep our system working. ;)
Quote from: Dan on July 19, 2017, 05:43:50 AM
And yet our politicians from both sides are intent on converting our system to the American model, one tiny bit at a time. This would be a tragedy if we allow this to happen.
I suspect those politicians are listening to those who want to get a finger in the health care pie. I view with suspicions those who say business can do certain things better than the government. In Canada, experience tends to show the costs rising and service declining when business takes over from government. There are some things, such as health care, that are clearly not best done by business. This is a big problem in in the U.S. health care system.
Mod edit<formatted quote for clarity>
Quote from: AnneK on July 19, 2017, 06:16:55 AM
I suspect those politicians are listening to those who want to get a finger in the health care pie. I view with suspicions those who say business can do certain things better than the government. In Canada, experience tends to show the costs rising and service declining when business takes over from government. There are some things, such as health care, that are clearly not best done by business. This is a big problem in in the U.S. health care system.
Mod edit<formatted quote for clarity>
You are absolutely correct on every point, Anne. Big business is controlling our politicians who are doing their best to persuade the voters that it will be in their best interests. Reminds me of George Orwell's "Animal Farm" in so many ways. "We are all equal" just some are more equal than others.
The problem is voter apathy and their general lack of understanding of the big issues. Gullibility and lack of education is the politician's best friend.
That this occurs in the most powerful country in the world is an absolute disgrace. And Trump wants to "fix" it by cutting millions off medicaid, while giving tax breaks to insurance execs.
QuoteThousands flock to free medical clinic in Virginia while Washington stalls on health care
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/07/21/thousands-flock-to-free-medical-clinic-in-virginia-while-washington-stalls-on-health-care.html (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/07/21/thousands-flock-to-free-medical-clinic-in-virginia-while-washington-stalls-on-health-care.html)
Quote from: AnneK on July 21, 2017, 07:36:41 PM
That this occurs in the most powerful country in the world is an absolute disgrace. And Trump wants to "fix" it by cutting millions off medicaid, while giving tax breaks to insurance execs.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/07/21/thousands-flock-to-free-medical-clinic-in-virginia-while-washington-stalls-on-health-care.html (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/07/21/thousands-flock-to-free-medical-clinic-in-virginia-while-washington-stalls-on-health-care.html)
It's not just tax breaks for insurance execs. Most large corporations pay less than half the tax I have to pay on my income. I pay over 30% of my income as tax. Here is just a small list of the tax that the largest corporations are paying:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2016/10/20/how-much-do-public-companies-pay-in-income-taxes/2/#3e417e956fba (https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2016/10/20/how-much-do-public-companies-pay-in-income-taxes/2/#3e417e956fba)
Why are we not voting the bastards out of office and vote in those who will make sure that corporations do not pay less tax than most of us ordinary folks do? That's the big question.
Quote from: Dan on July 22, 2017, 06:38:10 AM
Why are we not voting the bastards out of office and vote in those who will make sure that corporations do not pay less tax than most of us ordinary folks do? That's the big question.
Because Citizens United rigged the entire system against the working people and in favor of the corporations.
http://tinyurl.com/pzq24hq
Conform and be dull. —James Frank Dobie, The Voice of the Coyote
The main reason the system is in such a mess is voters don't care enough to vote in the primaries.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: Dan on July 22, 2017, 06:38:10 AM
It's not just tax breaks for insurance execs. Most large corporations pay less than half the tax I have to pay on my income. I pay over 30% of my income as tax. Here is just a small list of the tax that the largest corporations are paying:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2016/10/20/how-much-do-public-companies-pay-in-income-taxes/2/#3e417e956fba (https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2016/10/20/how-much-do-public-companies-pay-in-income-taxes/2/#3e417e956fba)
Why are we not voting the bastards out of office and vote in those who will make sure that corporations do not pay less tax than most of us ordinary folks do? That's the big question.
While we are in different countries, what I object to is how much the government waste money or uses it to buy political control. They would rather spend their time finding additional ways to spend money instead of cleaning up previous mess that others have left. I have the view that they shouldn't be allowed to pass a new law unless they eliminate two others. Sooner or latter they would have to clean up the tax code and eliminate the tax loop holes making taxes more equal.
By the way, companies don't ever pay taxes, their customers pay them. If you raise a company's tax rate, all you do is price them out of the market place and cause them to stop doing business.
QuoteBy the way, companies don't ever pay taxes, their customers pay them. If you raise a company's tax rate, all you do is price them out of the market place and cause them to stop doing business.
This is a tired argument and we have a similar one in Ontario about minimum wages. The government is planning to raise the minimum wage, so that people earning it will be above the poverty line, as they were years ago. We've been hearing all sorts from small businesses etc. about how it's going to cut jobs etc. This ignores the fact that the business is still there and the minimum wage increase will affect all competitors, so there's no loss of competitive advantage. One thing they also forget is more money in someones pocket means more business all around. Someone who's struggling to put food on the table has nothing to spare for anything else. We've had 3 decades, since Reagan, about how cutting taxes for the wealthy is supposed to boost the economy for all. Well, there's one problem with that argument. It's absolute nonsense, always has been, always will be. By definition, the wealthy have lots of money and there's nothing to stop them from spending it if they want to. Yet, in all of history, you won't find an instance where low taxes for the wealthy resulted in across the board benefits for everyone. It just doesn't work that way, ever!!! What we have seen over the past 3 decades is a significant shift in wealth, from the general population to the so called 1%. Then we have execs who now make 200-300x the average employee, compared with 20-30x 3, 4 decades ago. This is the result of cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations. Look at what caused the 2008 collapse. It was the gutting of financial regulations, that allowed hazardous practices that killed the economy. Some banks etc., were engaged in fraud against their customers. Let's not forget the sub prime mortgage, mortgage backed securities scam, where the banks harmed their customers on both ends of that deal. I don't know about in the U.S., but in Canada execs are often paid in stock options. This has been compared to being allowed to bet on a horse race, after it's been run. And any income from this is taxed at a much lower rate than regular income. Some companies have also been caught back dating the options to when stock prices were highest. We also have companies like Microsoft and Apple claiming they earn most of their income in Ireland, which has much lower tax rates.
Governments have been listening to business and the wealthy for far too long and hurting the country as a whole. As a result, the economy is in a downward spiral, where the average person is worse and worse off.
There is a difference between executives and companies. My post discussed only companies. I have an opinion about executives that I will not post here as it would start an argument.
Quote from: AnneK on July 22, 2017, 01:04:35 PM
This is a tired argument and we have a similar one in Ontario about minimum wages. The government is planning to raise the minimum wage, so that people earning it will be above the poverty line, as they were years ago. We've been hearing all sorts from small businesses etc. about how it's going to cut jobs etc. This ignores the fact that the business is still there and the minimum wage increase will affect all competitors, so there's no loss of competitive advantage. One thing they also forget is more money in someones pocket means more business all around. Someone who's struggling to put food on the table has nothing to spare for anything else. We've had 3 decades, since Reagan, about how cutting taxes for the wealthy is supposed to boost the economy for all. Well, there's one problem with that argument. It's absolute nonsense, always has been, always will be. By definition, the wealthy have lots of money and there's nothing to stop them from spending it if they want to. Yet, in all of history, you won't find an instance where low taxes for the wealthy resulted in across the board benefits for everyone. It just doesn't work that way, ever!!! What we have seen over the past 3 decades is a significant shift in wealth, from the general population to the so called 1%. Then we have execs who now make 200-300x the average employee, compared with 20-30x 3, 4 decades ago. This is the result of cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations. Look at what caused the 2008 collapse. It was the gutting of financial regulations, that allowed hazardous practices that killed the economy. Some banks etc., were engaged in fraud against their customers. Let's not forget the sub prime mortgage, mortgage backed securities scam, where the banks harmed their customers on both ends of that deal. I don't know about in the U.S., but in Canada execs are often paid in stock options. This has been compared to being allowed to bet on a horse race, after it's been run. And any income from this is taxed at a much lower rate than regular income. Some companies have also been caught back dating the options to when stock prices were highest. We also have companies like Microsoft and Apple claiming they earn most of their income in Ireland, which has much lower tax rates.
Governments have been listening to business and the wealthy for far too long and hurting the country as a whole. As a result, the economy is in a downward spiral, where the average person is worse and worse off.
In general, a correct analysis.
Now add automation to the mix, and within a few decades, there will be fewer and fewer people working at all. In fact, the number of new jobs generated that earn a living wage, has been outstripped by the number of people entering the workforce looking for jobs to buy the stuff the corporations are wanting to flog.
Interesting times are on their way.
Quote from: Dan on July 22, 2017, 05:02:37 PM
In general, a correct analysis.
Now add automation to the mix, and within a few decades, there will be fewer and fewer people working at all. In fact, the number of new jobs generated that earn a living wage, has been outstripped by the number of people entering the workforce looking for jobs to buy the stuff the corporations are wanting to flog.
Interesting times are on their way.
The changes due to automation resulted in shorter work weeks. It wasn't that long ago that a 6 day, then 5.5 day work weeks were common. Maybe we need a 4.5 or 4 day work week. Also, newer technology has also provided some new jobs. There weren't a lot of computer techs 100 years ago. ;)
As I mentioned, a big part of the problem is the transfer of wealth from the bulk of the population to the few. Reaganomics had exactly the opposite effect of what was promised. Another big problem is transferring so much work to 3rd world countries and paying the workers pennies and making them work in hazardous environments. You may recall that Rana fire a few years ago. Those people received a few cents on an item that sold for several dollars here. It wouldn't cost us that much to pay them significantly more than they get. We've got to get away from the lowest price at any cost mindset we seem to have gotten into. I learned a long time ago, the lowest price is rarely the best price, because you often wind up paying more in the long run.
Its interesting I just did a little study. I just returned from my chemist. I went there to get some prescriptions . I bought :
1 box of my Metformin(statin) tablets cost $A5.30 (thats $US 4.22)
1 box of Alluprinol (for Gout) $A5.30 (thats $US 4.22)
3 boxes of Panadeine Forte (strong pain killers) $A12.30 total (thats $US 9.80)
All my medicines are covered under our Australian subsidised PBS System. I just wonder what these cost in the US, Canada, UK, Netherlands etc covered by that study.
Looking at some of the US web sites it appears as though:
Statin (metformin) costs $10.64 roughly double the cost of Australia
Alluoprinol costs $10.69 again roughly double the cost of Australia
Panadeine Forte (Tylenol 4) in the US costs $32.27 roughly 4 times the cost
<comment removed by Admin. I will not have a political argument here>
Judith
:police:
This thread will not become an argument for or against politicians or political parties.
I live in the USA but I'm from the uk. On prescription, most medicines are free in the uk. I wish the USA would adopt a more socially responsible forward looking system. Sadly, I think there are too many vested interests.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Just came across this really interesting Web site which compares 8 countries including US, UK, Canada, Australia and Singapore plus others:
Very useful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtuXrrEZsAg&list=PLkfBg8ML-gIngk82SUbTp6Og_KkYfJ6oF&index=8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtuXrrEZsAg&list=PLkfBg8ML-gIngk82SUbTp6Og_KkYfJ6oF&index=8)