Quote:
Originally Posted by SluttyShemaleAnna
Contrast that the UK, which is only 41st in spending with only 8% of GDP spent, but come 18th in the ranking, well ahead of hte US.
...
If Universal healthcare is so inefficient, and private healthcare so efficient, why is it that the WHO ranks the US so shit compared to it's spending, but countries with universal healthcare do far better than their amount of spending is?
|
And what criteria did the WHO use to rank countries? Obviously the US system is corrupt and inefficient. This does not, however, mean that you're better off going to a hospital in Romania than the US.
You really can't refute the fact that the US has most of the best doctors, most of the best hospitals, and is the world leader in medical research. This only makes sense because US drug companies get all the money for selling all the Viagra to the world. And obviously good doctors are going to be more likely go practice where they are better compensated for their skills. I spent a lot of time in Florida with my grandparents when I was younger. They have many friends who live in Canada during the summer and Florida during the winter. These people all get all their doctors' visits taken care of before going back to Canada because the care they get is vastly superior in the US. Why wouldn't they go to the doctor in Canada where it's free for them? Because US healthcare is better if you can afford it.
Universal healthcare is better if you're poor -- which I happen to be at this point, so it would be nice, but regardless, lack of universal healthcare does not make the US healthcare system itself inferior. US healthcare is both superior and incredibly inefficient.