Why Does Europe Take Better Care of Its People Than America?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

If that's where your analysis starts and ends, i'm not surprised that you reach simplistic conclusions. Regardless, the thread is about healthcare, not guns. I only pointed this out because you have a habit of 'cherrypicking'

Healthcare..oh yeah..back to topic (you were losing the gun argument) In the appropriate forum someday you can expand the analysis as much as you like and explain why people (anywhere) would somehow be different than people in Vermont

As for heathcare...obviously someone can cherry pick a system and apply the logic to all of Europe. Now, that is either a good technique (and applicable to the gun argument) OR it is a bad technique and clearly something other than the healthcare systemmakes the difference. France and Moldova for example, have essentially the same "system".

Pointing out that it is a bad technique for the gun argument (it is, purposefully) also points out it is bad for the healthcare argument. Thank you.

There are other reasons for crime, guns and gun laws have nothing to do with it. There are other reasons for good healthcare, the system itself does not guarantee good care.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There was no gun argument to lose, just pointing out your tendency for extravagant assumption.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

In point of fact Gary, the article references 9 named countries. You're the one hung up on Europe. Lazy reader, lazy arguments.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

The thread isn't just about healthcare.

The thread isn't about guns at all.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Indeed, it's about standards of living

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Why do you think they do? You think Ukraine has better health care than the USA? Moldova? Serbia? Maybe Bosnia? Albania? Belarus maybe? Slovenia?

None of the countries you mention (with the exception of Slovenia) are part of the OECD. This is relevant because the data in the article is gleaned from OECD nations. Which are

Australia

Austria

Belgium

Canada

Chile

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Japan

Korea

Luxembourg

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Poland

Portugal

Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Switzerland

Turkey

United Kingdom

United States

http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_36734052_36761800_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

[Pooky 3,787]

I suspect that a lot of Western Europe takes better care of its people because, post WWII, the free governments concentrated on rebuilding the wreckage of their shattered infrastructures and recognised that government programs were the only way it could happen.

In contrast, Eastern Europe was constrained by the old Soviet Union, which meant that the individual countries, as well as the Warsaw Pact countries as a bloc, had higher priorities than taking care of its citizens.

And the U.S.? Having seen little collateral consequence from two World Wars, the need to rebuild was completely absent. The government wasn't needed to help rebuild and the population didn't feel the need for Federal assistance, an attitude that continues in large part to the present day. With the prevalence of this "leave me alone, I don't need you attitude", the private sector took advantage and has relentlessly steered things away from "care" and toward "profit".

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Indeed, it's about standards of living

And about how different nations get to those standards.

A position of power in the world does not automatically equate the best standard of living for it's people. Witness the late Soviet republic, a political powerhouse until the block fell. It's people were certainly not rolling in wealth and health. Regimes were more interested in protecting their international power than they were their own people. Not (in my opinion) unlike the right-wing in the US, who equate US military might with the personal happiness of US citizens.

The so-called economic policies of countries (capitalism, socialism, communism) are not necessarily what drives the well being of a population. Any policy in its purest form should lead to a healthy, happy society. Rather it's the twist and turns world leaders apply to those policies that directly affect the population. As long as the US prefers (internationally) to concentrate on military power and (domestically) to concentrate on taxation that benefits corporations above the citizenry, the lifestyle of US citizenry will continue to decline.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Rebecca Jo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From my experience the US can be a brutal place at times, I've seen people who do everything right (as the personal responsibility Libertarians would see it), be reduced to utter destitution through no fault of their own. Seems to me that the places with the best quality of life are countries where there is a decent framework of social support.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

From my experience the US can be a brutal place at times, I've seen people who do everything right (as the personal responsibility Libertarians would see it), be reduced to utter destitution through no fault of their own. Seems to me that the places with the best quality of life are countries where there is a decent framework of social support.

People are going to moan and complain about wherever they live, you know? The British complain about their weather. USC's complain about taxation. Both complain about leadership that is out of touch with its people.

But I agree with you about the social brutality in my country. And I think there is no greater social cruelty than reducing a long-contributing member of US society to bankruptcy through illness. I suppose at my age it is not so great a risk to me as it was in my youth. I can file a medical bankruptcy and still keep my house. I'm not likely to buy another house at my age so it won't matter if my credit is ruined.

[웃 910]

THE USA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I suspect that a lot of Western Europe takes better care of its people because, post WWII, the free governments concentrated on rebuilding the wreckage of their shattered infrastructures and recognised that government programs were the only way it could happen.

In contrast, Eastern Europe was constrained by the old Soviet Union, which meant that the individual countries, as well as the Warsaw Pact countries as a bloc, had higher priorities than taking care of its citizens.

And the U.S.? Having seen little collateral consequence from two World Wars, the need to rebuild was completely absent. The government wasn't needed to help rebuild and the population didn't feel the need for Federal assistance, an attitude that continues in large part to the present day. With the prevalence of this "leave me alone, I don't need you attitude", the private sector took advantage and has relentlessly steered things away from "care" and toward "profit".

perhaps you don't remember: "The New Deal?"

You know, those rebuilding programs, and the unfortunate ones that lasted like Social Security, Medicare, and later on Medicaid?

Perhaps you haven't seen the government regulations over the years that have allowed prices to skyrocket and lapse any type of true market control.

Perhaps even just as last year you didn't see legislation that gave full power to big pharma over domestic drugs in Obamacare.

In keeping this simple, we can argue all we want about europe and the United States, however the government has played a HUGE role here in the destruction of our healthcare system, just as Europe may have tried to do something positive (which isn't as rosy as some make it out to be either).

[Pooky 3,787]

perhaps you don't remember: "The New Deal?"

You know, those rebuilding programs, and the unfortunate ones that lasted like Social Security, Medicare, and later on Medicaid?

Perhaps you haven't seen the government regulations over the years that have allowed prices to skyrocket and lapse any type of true market control.

Perhaps even just as last year you didn't see legislation that gave full power to big pharma over domestic drugs in Obamacare.

In keeping this simple, we can argue all we want about europe and the United States, however the government has played a HUGE role here in the destruction of our healthcare system, just as Europe may have tried to do something positive (which isn't as rosy as some make it out to be either).

Was the "New Deal" to rebuild an infrastructure that someone had tried to bomb back into the Stone Age? Didn't think so.

The New Deal was purely a reaction to an economic situation. Europe faced the same in the 1930's, then suffered 5½ years of World War II at close quarters. Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Low Countries, all suffered heavily from air raids, Germany more than most. The USA had Pearl Harbor, and some Japanese incursion in the Aleutians. Very different situations.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think the US could follow the model of the "winners" in Europe and give less healthcare for less money. The largest driver of healthcare and entitlement programs is over-expectations, largely driven by the unions and AARP.* In that realm, we are not too far from the economic disasters afflicting the "losers" in Europe.

*Despite the questionable authorship of the quote, the truth is empirically undeniable:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

THE USA HAS THE BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That almost made me laugh.