What does this mean? That people in the UK live 1.2 years longer because they have superior healthcare? It could be due to the fact that in America we have an obesity epidemic. Healthcare quality isn't the only thing that factors into life expectancy.
The British are not far off on the obesity problem. But I see it makes a nice excuse. Like it or not obesity is not a "US problem" by far. The Germans are near the US on some obesity stats and the UK not far behind. But it is hard to find current statistics it seems.. best I have found is at Forbes.. wtf.. from 2007 (so 2005-6 numbers).
What statistic is this supposed to be for? Any sources?
It is one of the many statistics you can see at WHO and OECD. It is how many children die before their 5th birthday.
WHO Global Health Observatory has it all.
This is factually incorrect. According to
Physicians per 1,000 people (most recent) by country
52United States: 2.3 per 1,000 people
55 United Kingdom: 2.2 per 1,000 people
The US has more doctors per person (even though it is slightly more) than the UK. Your statistic is wrong.
Yes, it was factually incorrect in 2002.... now in 2010 it is actually factually correct.
OECD Health Data 2010 - Frequently Requested Data
Excel ark btw, but it has lots of nice information. It shows 2.61 practising physicians per 1000 population for the UK in 2008 and 2.43 for the US. Now there is no number yet for 2009 for the US, but the UK climbed to 2.71... doubt the US made up that much ground in 1 year.. And this fits the trend in the US, where hospitals are being closed at an almost record pace.
This is correct. The US only has 320 hospital beds per 100,000 people. The UK has 390. However, Russia has 1072, Belarus has 1124, and Poland has 523. Does that mean these nations have a better healthcare system than the UK? You have to take into account the quality of care in hospitals and population growth rates. I've known many sick people, and no one has ever been turned away from a hospital due to no vacancy.
Actually it is now 310 per 100.000 people according to the new statistics, and the UK has 340. As for your second point, no it does not. But I was replying to the "expensive" comment if you look, and places like the UK and pretty much everyone else that the US compares it self normally, get more for their money by far. And yes, having more beds and good health statistics and more doctors and so on, shows how efficient a healthcare system is vs the amount of money pumped into it.
That is due to culture and personal life style choices. I would like to see proof related directly to healthcare, hospitals, and the quality of care.
Ahh the "obesity" excuse again. Listen, obesity and life style choices are not that dramatically different between the US and UK or Germany or many other countries. The only ones where you remotely can claim this, are countries around the Mediterranean because of their use of olive oil. The Brits and Germans are fat, they eat fatty unhealthy foods and drink too much.
Source please? In the UK healthcare is funded by taxes. Who has the higher taxes?
41 United States: 35 %
24 United Kingdom: 40 %
Source? It is commen fact lol. Again I refer you to the OECD Excel ark. First page.. 2008 numbers, the US spent 7538 dollars per capita, the UK 3129 per capita. Considering US healthcare costs are out of control, then the present 2010 number will be around 8000 if not over... does the healthcare costs not rise about 15% to 30% a year now days?
As for your argument that the UK pays more taxes .. yes that is true. However unlike the US, everyone is covered and there is no self payment and coverage does not run out if your plan maximum runs out.. If we were to add the same level of coverage to the US, then your over all "burden" would skyrocket way past the 40% in tax rate the UK pays, because of the extremely high healthcare costs.
Okay say we take two people. No deductibles and all that crap as it scews the facts. One in the UK and one in the US. Both earn say 100.000 dollars and after taxes that would leave 65000 for the American and 60000 for the Brit. Now since the Brit already has paid for his healthcare and that of his family through taxes he does not have any additional costs on this.. however the American still has to go out and find a healthcare plan.. and to match the coverage of the British one.. what would that cost the American... more than 5000 dollars or less.. a year for a family? Well according to this...
Average family health insurance policy: $13,375, up 5% - USATODAY.com
it would cost him 13375, and not even give the same coverage as the British model. And yes if we are talking about a single person, then the US system would be slightly cheaper but less coverage.. oh bugger!
So again, I would claim paying over taxes is cheaper than a single payer system.
In America we are headed for an inferior system filled with bureaucracy and even more wasteful spending.
That may be, but it is not because of Government, since Government has caved in to big business and let them make the rules. Hence the healthcare market is basically localized monopolies with zero controls on prices.
My dermatologist is from the UK, and he has told us how horrible their healthcare system is. One reason he left the UK was to escape it.
Oh dont get me wrong, by European standards the UK NHS is at the bottom of the pile so to say, but it is still miles ahead of the US at least on the statistical background.
As for you dermatologist.. guess he was pissed he could not squeeze his victims.. I mean customers, for all the money they had. You see in Europe, people dont usually become doctors because they want to be rich.. but because .. yes I know it is shocking.. they actually want to help people.
Now, I am for an efficient form of socialized healthcare. I believe it's a right and I do believe that in America we are spending too much and wasting too much. However, the British healthcare system has become a bloated bureaucracy that is inefficient.
And again, you base this one what? RNC Talking points.. what Fox tells you?