Reader comments
Health care in U.S. best, despite flaws
20 comments | Read story
Get today's headlines via email
Good morning edition
Deseret News Family Deals
In Opinion
Across Site
- Jay Evensen: On second thought...
- Readers' forum: No nuclear waste in Utah
- In our opinion: New nuclear plants...
- Readers' forum: Price of freedom
- Robert Bennett: A brokered...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: The...
- Readers' forum: A changing Constitution
- Michael Gerson: Egypt's craziness is...
- George F. Will: Is it bribery or just...
- Mackenzie Eaglen: Obama's proposed...
In Opinion
Across Site
- In our opinion: Editorial: Protecting...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: The...
- Charles Krauthammer: The Gospel...
- Evangelicals and Mormons: Can we talk?
- Readers' forum: A changing Constitution
- My view: The climate is right to tear...
- George F. Will: Is it bribery or just...
- Robert Bennett: A brokered...
- Mackenzie Eaglen: Obama's proposed...
- Readers' forum: Teachers came first
In Opinion
Across Site
- Evangelicals and Mormons: Can we talk?
54 - Letters: Bush's failed policies
52 - Letters: A changing Constitution
35 - Letters: Teachers not overpaid
30 - Letters: Home equity loans
28 - Letters: Rights of conscience
25 - Editorial: Rights of conscience
25 - GOP no longer leads on defense
24 - Letter: Taxing our children
21 - The Gospel according to Obama
21












People are actually dying from untreated tooth decay in the U.S.
But the only complaint being raised loud and clear is that 15% of our nations citizens do not have access to healthcare, primarily because of the cost. Consequently, many of those individuals use emergency services only, for which they often don't have to pay anything, and that situation drives up health care for everyone. And so it doesn't seem appropriate to claim the U.S. system as best when it only serves a portion of the citizens.
How long ago did his parents live in England?
What kind of dental help did his father need?
If "several years ago" translates into "thirty years ago", it's hardly right to compare that system with our current one.
How are things in England now?
Not to mention France, Germany, and Scandinavia.
And while the US may have some of the best hospitals, millions of Americans can't afford decent health insurance.
Me? I'm a healthy man in his early twenties who pays (or my company pays) over $10,000 a year for a $1500 deductible plan (and that's just for me).
Health care in the US has problems. Time to pull our heads out of the sand, acknowledge it, and find a solution.
Why does the U.S. insist on following the lead of Europe and others who wait on a list for proceedures and appointments that, sometimes never come. The grass always seems greener on the other side!
We already use tax dollars to pay for the care of the indigent, many of the uninsured, the elderly, those without insurance when they have medical emergencies, the military, government employees, those with permanent disability, those with certain types of cancer and kidney disease. Why not the rest of us.
Our non-system needs help and unfortunately free market driven approaches are doomed to fail.
Yes US health care is the best for those who can afford it. What about those who can't. What about those who can't get insurance. The fact that the well to do have the best is no reason to not try to improve the system so that the rest of the people can get what everyone else already has.
We can afford to give the CEO's millions whether or not they do a good job, why not tax them to help their workers be able to afford decent health care?
Even if the constitution didn't have this clause though, just remember slavery was allowed under the constitution. Therefore although the constitution has its good points, I wouldn't hold it up as the ultimate decider of what is good or the thing that we ought to follow.
So it isn't that socialism is bad, but that too much socialism or socialism in the wrong ways is bad.
Just as too much capitalism is bad.
We need a mix
It is easy enough to cherry pick the subject to show the excellence that is available, but overall this country ranks 37th nationally in measurable outcomes of medical care. Much need to be improved.
Mr. Evenson, please do you homework and write a better editorial.
here's one: you do not wait more than 4.5 (max) weeks for any operation in this country. and you do not wait if it is life threatening. infact 97% of all non emergency treatments were carried out on time last year.
i have never ever in my life thought about being ill and money in the same sentence, and i wouldn't change it for the world.
FACT. US Health Care is not the best in the world, so some of you need to put away your little American flags and get a grip!
of the world's health systems.
Source: WHO World Health Report - See also Spreadsheet Details (731kb)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rank Country
1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
You did not list the criteria which put the U.S. at #37 on the WHO list. What is likely not surprising is that the WHO used as one of its primary criteria whether or not there was universal coverage. In other words, the fact that the U.S. does not employ socialized medicine was a big reason the U.S. is so far down the list.
It is not a perfect answer, but one answer that we SHOULD be willing to ask is, between the top 37 countries listed on the WHO list, where would you want to go for health care? I certainly wouldn't choose Morrocco, Costa Rica, on almost any other country on the list over the U.S. In fact, even daphnee and liberal larry probably don't fly to those countries when they need health care, so their complaining about health care in the U.S. sounds a bit hollow.
I would also point out that the 47 million uninsured are not all poor people who can't pay. A lot of them are fairly well off, younger Americans who have made a conscious choice that the premiums aren't worth the benefit they get.