WTF?! Nobody told me this, I deduced this is what occurs. So if I am wrong, and I have yet to see the figures (I'll be eating humble pie if these figures appear
), then I still have no idea who these "architects of your system" are and what "pathetic excuse" they have made.
Delivered. As this nonsense hits the news every time the subject comes up, I don't know how you've failed to hear this from someone else. I have revised my assumption that you were ill informed. I now assume you live in a box under a bridge somewhere and stole a computer to post here.
Here is a World Health Organisation fact from 2000 (http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html). In ranking countries in terms of health care:
What is largely irrelevant to the subject they pretend to report on. Why is the more important question.
If I have a congenital heart defect and I die from a heart attack in my thirties, it would be rather silly to blame that on my lifestyle. There was an actual problem present that killed me, correct?
On the reverse, it would be rather retarded to assume a defect killed me if I were 500 pounds at the time, yes?
The WHO looks at the number of people that die from this or that disease, and then says look, you guys suck. What it ignores is that the US is filled with a bunch of fat, lazy, chain smoking slobs that are killing themselves with diabetes, heart disease, and other obesity related problems. It's assuming there is a defect in our health care that is killing us, when the defect is in lifestyle. Why we are dying from it is far more important than what we are dying from, when judging the care we recieve.
It's a simple fact, Europeans live healthier lifestyles than people in the US do. They walk more, over eat less, and are vastly more responsible in regards to substance abuse. When, instead of looking at fatality rates for those treatable diseases, you look at survival rates among the people with those disease, the US is #1 in nearly every cancer category. Last I checked, Japan had the top spot for one of them, can't remember which and the study is lost in the vast seas of the internets at the moment.
If you're brave, you can look up the heathcare debates that took place on this forum a few months back. I shredded, in greater detail, all the utopian bullshit claims made about the socialized medical care in other countries. No one matches the US, and the socialized systems that are coming close are even more bankrupt than ours is.
Says in that story that Hawaii has the highest rate of breast cancer in the USA but also the lowest death rate from it.
Hawaiians also possess one of the lowest workforce participation rates. Forcing employers to provide health care has it's drawbacks. In one of the most expensive places to live, it's in the low sixties. North Dakota, on the other hand, is above 70. Sure, they've got low costs, and everyone with a job meeting x requirements has insurance, but there's a couple hundred thousand people that don't work because of it.
This system they put in place doesn't even manage a million people and they still have significant side effects from it. In Massachussets, a much better example, they're broke. They aren't a tropical paradise that gets 40% of their GDP from other people showing up to see it.