Yeah, here in the UK she could've been told that she wasn't going to get tested for coronavirus over the phone for free. It's a much more civilized system. (Though to be fair, we did a little better at adding Italy to the list of qualifying countries promptly than the USA.)

UK tests per million: 387

USA tests per million: 26

Not really the same.

There should be some adjustment for expected exposures, no?

If you believe the numbers, the UK has 6.9 per million infected, and the USA has 4.1, so they're pretty similar.

You shouldn't believe the numbers, though, because the USA is barely testing people—and not because they aren't sick; testing in the US is often expensive, as obviously idiotic as that is. I'd expect the USA to have a higher number of infected per capita in actuality.

>Guess which country has better health outcomes.

The US, by all objective measures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_quality_o...

It's actually not uncommon for Brits to travel to America to pay for treatments not available on the national health or to avoid the often years-long waiting lists.

Here "Not uncommon" means "Very uncommon" because of course as this story illustrates US medicine is _ludicrously_ expensive and so the only reason you'd _travel_ there to get medical treatment is because that's the only place offering some obscure treatment you want.

Also is that list of really weird stats "all objective measures" ? No. It's just "Here are some numbers somebody seemingly randomly picked from a _vast_ array of statistics kept for the OECD".

>... so the only reason you'd _travel_ there to get medical treatment is because that's the only place offering some obscure treatment you want. <

When is this not true though? Of course traveling farther would be less desirable when moving between developed countries, it adds burden and costs on top of whatever you were already going to have to pay without offering much opportunity for recouping costs. The only exception might be traversing the EU but that's because of geographical convenience more than anything else. America is literally across the sea, if we're cheaper for someone in the UK then someone fucked up somewhere at the NHS.

My point is, if you're sat in say, Liverpool, and you see the elective surgery you want is six to nine months out but that seems forever, you don't go "Oh, let's fly to San Francisco and get it done privately there, we can spend the kids inheritance" you start looking at private providers in Liverpool (there are several) or maybe Switzerland. You are attracted by a good price in say, India, or a friend recommends somewhere in Eastern Europe.

The US is very expensive compared to other private options is my point.

40 million Americans don't have healthcare[1], and another 38 million have "inadequate" health care[2]. Together that's more than the entire population of the UK.

It's not so impressive that if you only treat the richest with the best jobs who can afford the best treatments, you get better outcomes than systems which treat everyone.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/16/americans-without-health-ins...

[2] https://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html

I’m one of the people without healthcare and everyday I pray for my family, “I hope we stay in good health and don’t have to see a doctor or the hospital, one small thing and we’re likely to be bankrupt”

On the other hand, https://www.salon.com/2018/03/05/americans-still-have-to-go-...

Mmm yeah I wonder.

UK: someone dies of cancer or whatever. Enters the statistics as cancer death. Drags down outcome.

USA: someone dies of cancer or whatever. Was poor. Gets buried. Cancer statistics unharmed.

You still have to report some cause of death.

And how well does that work do you think? Given how many are misdiagnosed or undiagnosed before death, how much money and effort do you think is spent on the cause of death for some random, (literally) poor corpse?

Of course "some" reason will be logged.

You were implying, that sloppiness leads to reduced cancer statistics, painting a better picture for the US. Well, if another cause of death is used instead, the picture will look worse for it. There is no escape.

I think it might actually!

(Like obesity, heart failure, complex some-or-other, "natural causes", take your pick.)