The fact is, it is not cost effective in a public or private system to have a "birthing center" for under 300 births a year in an area, when there is close by (and yes 30 miles is close) a hospital that can take the slack up. It would be a waste of money and I know you are all into cost cutting and stopping waste right?
Plus the baby was 1 month early!!!!!
Yea says right wing think tanks with zero proof. Seriously I have heard this bs excuse for years and have yet seen any evidence of it at all. One would think that the right wingers would promote it far more than they do, if they actually had evidence to prove it... considering that administrative costs for private insurers is huge when compared to UHC.UHC and government health care systems hide their administrative costs.
So they are not cheaper in that respect although it is harder to quantify.
Well you could stop giving healthy livers to 70 year old drunks for one.I'm glad it costs a lot considering we are going to need all that extra capacity to handle the retiring baby boomers. I hope any government program fails and fails hard because in about 10 years or so, we are going to have all the medical capacity we need and you guys are going to be struggling handling your aging populations.
And you are living in a fantasy world. For one you have less medical capacity per captia than we do, you have less beds, less doctors. You do not cover all your population and your population stays away from healthcare because they cant afford it. We on the other hand pay far less per capita, have more beds, same amount of nurses, more doctors, and most likely more hospitals too and the only reason to stay away from getting treatment is fear of said treatment, ignorance but never because it will put you and your children in debt for life.
BS. There is zero evidence of this. Yes demand is increasing, but the supposed "profits" of US HMOs and hospitals is not being put into new hospitals, more beds or facilities. The number of Emergency rooms in the US has been falling for decades.Costs are rising because an increase in demand exists and those profits are turned into building extra facilities and hiring more doctors.
Crisis Seen in Nation's ER Care - washingtonpost.com
Interesting article that totally blows your world view out of the water..
So, those profits are going into investing in facilities?... I see.. which are those exactly?.. spas? breast implant clinics?From 1993 to 2003, the U.S. population grew by 12 percent but emergency room visits grew by 27 percent, from 90 million to 114 million. In that same period, however, 425 emergency departments closed, along with about 700 hospitals and nearly 200,000 beds.
You also do not have more doctors and nurses per captia than a country spending far less. You do not have more hospital beds than a country spending less.. in fact you have far less hospital beds.
According to WHO, the US has 32 beds for every 10000 people. Do you think places like Spain, France, Germany and the UK have more or less.. Well France and Germany have double the amount of beds per 10000 and Spain and the UK also have more but not double the amount.
If we look at nurses it is more even. The UK has far more nurses than the US, where as France, Germany and Spain have a bit less. But considering you spend almost double the amount per captia then one would expect far more nurses no?
If we look at doctors.. then your whole world view falls apart. The US has 26 doctors per 10000 people. France, Germany and Spain have 33 to 34 doctors per 10000 people.. only the UK has less than the US. Funny, if the right wing mantra of "doctors are coming to the US" should be true, then why do you have far less doctors than we do?
Statistics and facts are a bitch.
Expensive is not better either especially when it is rationed by race and economic standing like it is in the US. Just take out your black population like the right always loves to do and wupti.. your world health ranking goes up!.. yea Black Americans are not real Americans after all right.. they just Muslim sleeper cells waiting to take over the US government... right?Cheaper is not better.
So? I do not deny it, however it has to be taken in context.I have a far higher chance of surviving cancer in the U.S. than anywhere in Europe.
Things like detection rates, number of cancer suffers, number of cancer suffers that get treatment and so on. That number is only for people who actually get treatment.. what about those not getting treatment or are not detected because they are too afraid of the medical bill? And to be frank, if you look at the raw numbers then the differences are not that great, but yes an American who has been diagnosed with cancer (depending on the type btw) has a greater chance of survival...So you beat the world on one illness.. congrats..
But we can trade statistics if you want.
I have a much better chance of avoiding tuberculoses here than in the US. Considering that this was suppose to have been eradicated from the west decades ago.. then.. wtf.
Women in the US have a far higher chance of dieing at birth.
Infant mortality is far higher in the US (can already see the response to this one).
We can go on and on with these tit-for-tat statistical jabs if you want, but it does not change the fact that the US system does not cover everyone, and is far far more expensive than anything in Europe who do cover everyone.