Re:The Danger of Managing Drug Prices
by beagle3 on Sunday September 13, 2015 @02:02AM
(#10210501)
> I've lived in the US and Australia and I think that the US system is vastly superior (assuming you have decent insurance).
Go ask your australian friends who lived in the US what they think. I've lived in the US and Israel, and spent considerable time in the UK (the latter two single payer systems), and I had great insurance living in the US.
The "standard of care" is a vague measure that could mean anything at all. Yes, being hospitalized in the US is more like a hotel room, one person per room.
But the doctors are considerably less experienced (structurally so), which means you get the wrong care for things that aren't common (from experience). The "out-of-pocket" on my great insurance in the US is significantly higher than my premium-to-make-include-hotel-room-stays in the other places. And I generally have much shorter waits for both routine visits and specialty doctors outside the US.
The US costs a lot more. In return, you get care that is lesser but is shinier. Every statistic of care effectiveness that I've seen ranks the US quite low -- mostly comparing life expectancy but also quality-of-life post treatment.
What's this "standard of care" you speak of?
Note, I'm unfamiliar with the australian system - it might be worse than the US on every front. But the Japanese, Swiss, British, most EU, and Israeli systems are not lesser and much, much cheaper, in my opinion and limited experience.
p.s. re "great insurance" - it's great until you really need it, but then it fails to be great way too often. Leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses[0] - more than 50% of medical bankruptcies are by people who have insurance. How great is that?
Go ask your australian friends who lived in the US what they think. I've lived in the US and Israel, and spent considerable time in the UK (the latter two single payer systems), and I had great insurance living in the US.
The "standard of care" is a vague measure that could mean anything at all. Yes, being hospitalized in the US is more like a hotel room, one person per room.
But the doctors are considerably less experienced (structurally so), which means you get the wrong care for things that aren't common (from experience). The "out-of-pocket" on my great insurance in the US is significantly higher than my premium-to-make-include-hotel-room-stays in the other places. And I generally have much shorter waits for both routine visits and specialty doctors outside the US.
The US costs a lot more. In return, you get care that is lesser but is shinier. Every statistic of care effectiveness that I've seen ranks the US quite low -- mostly comparing life expectancy but also quality-of-life post treatment.
What's this "standard of care" you speak of?
Note, I'm unfamiliar with the australian system - it might be worse than the US on every front. But the Japanese, Swiss, British, most EU, and Israeli systems are not lesser and much, much cheaper, in my opinion and limited experience.
p.s. re "great insurance" - it's great until you really need it, but then it fails to be great way too often. Leading cause of bankruptcy in the US is medical expenses[0] - more than 50% of medical bankruptcies are by people who have insurance. How great is that?
[0] http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148