Hacker News Reader

Comment by pskittle | Hacker News Reader

I studied in the US for a bit, inspite of the university having a decentish setup for medication. I preferred getting treated by local doctors in my home country. Studying about the healthcare system in the US makes me sad. It shouldn't be so painful and expensive

View on HN

It isn't that bad in the vast majority of cases, and in many ways it's better. 5 year cancer survivability rates for instance are top notch, ability to see specialists with little to no wait, etc.

Example: My friend's son was diagnosed with leukemia on Monday. They went to their primary care doctor Monday morning for some gum bleeding that wouldn't stop, were referred to a specialist Monday afternoon, and is already in a children's cancer hospital receiving treatment where he will be for the majority of the next 8-9 months.

And if your friend doesn't have good insurance it would mean total financial ruin

Or go on Medicaid? Or receive an ACA benefit that pays for insurance?

Which is a different issue than the quality of care. Again, we have some of highest (if not the highest) cancer survival rates in the world, and you're apparently more worried about if he will have to declare bankruptcy.

His son living is just slightly more important and with the ACA the chance of him having to declare bankruptcy is significantly decreased.

The US government spends more on healthcare per capita than countries with "socialised medicine". That funding is skewed to the over-65s on the Medicare system - the group where you see most cancer. That large spend on over 65s is what gives the US good cancer survival rates.

> The US government spends more on healthcare per capita than countries with "socialised medicine".

That's true of US public expenditures in total, but that's not just "the US government", it includes healthcare spending by non-federal government entities, as well.

I'm happy for your friend, but this is anecdotal evidence.

Statistics don't agree with your story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expec...

While I agree that there are great flaws in the US medical system, I don't think that life expectancy statistics is a good proof of them.

It gives you an idea where the health care system stands because life expectancy is low in places where there is no health care system. But life expectancy is greatly increased just by public sanitation - generally, education - and vaccinations, but could be lowered by factors that have little to do with health care.

American life expectancy is surely lowered by how Americans eat (no, I don't blame McDonalds who often gets the blame as an iconic brand). The kind of health insurance or lack of it, or how doctors work, cannot really decide how people eat. They try to impact but they cannot decide. Also, the US has a homicide rate that is substantially higher than in other developed countries. I won't bother myself by calculating how much that alone decreases life expectancy, but it's just an example of these other factors.

Your link doesn't disprove what I stated in any way.

I said "5 year cancer survivability" which relates directly to quality and availability of medical care. Poor care and difficult to access care will directly affect that.

> U.S., Japan, and France recorded the highest survival rates among 31 nations for four types of cancer http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-ra...

America's life expectancy issues (in which we are 1-3% behind the rest of the modern world, oh noes!) has to do with us being overweight. So, no, the stats you provided are completely unrelated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com