rain_and_snow | (no subject)

"The US system, in which the private sector clearly dominates expenditure, is a real world example of the way an essentially private system actually works. We know it costs a fortune, but if US health outcomes were markedly superior to those in this country, the additional expenditure might be justified. Sadly for US citizens, this is not the case. We know that infant mortality rates, for example, are lower in Australia than in the USA: 7.9 (males) and 6.0 (females) per 1,000 live births in Australia, compared to 10.8 and 8.8respectively for the USA (Australia1992, USA 1989). Maternal deathrates for Australia and the USA in1989 were, respectively, 4.9 per 100,000 live births compared to 8.4, and life expectancy at birth, at age 15 and at age 65 for both males and females is greater in Australia than in the USA in the case of all but females aged 65 years, where the expectancy is identical (Australia 1992, USA 1989). Finally, the age-standardised death rates for both females and males are lower in Australia than in the USA,females 551 per 100,000 compared to 626 in
the USA, and for males, 897 compared to 1,027(Australia 1992,USA 1989) (AIHW, 1194, pp. 240-250).

The US system, therefore, is predominantly private in its funding, produces health outcomes that are arguably no better and in some cases markedly worse than those in Australia, and spends almost twice as much as a proportion of GDP than the Australian system. Clearly, these data do not support the argument for a greater role for the private sector."

They spend twice as much as us, and have the shortest life expectancy of any developed country.

And yet, the Australian government decided to promote private health insurance through a rebate scheme, that leaves some people with a higher net income as a result of the rebate than they would have had with just public health insurance. Of course, they're taking on greater financial risk, too. The argument of the private sector being more efficient has been shown incorrect (they're more expensive, and do more procedures than a public hospital would for the same medical issue, with the same results) and increased use of private hospitals has not reduced pressure on the public health service - as patients move from one system to another, the doctors follow, because that's where the work is.

... I don't want to write this essay!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Looks like hell *hugs* I have my sociology exam tomorrow, guh! I'll be so glad when it's over. Wish I had taken that Academic Writing subject... People are strange and confusing.

*huggles*
It would make me much happier reading that if it didn't come with 20 year old stats. Also, if you have money, the us system is one of the best in the world, it just screws over anyone without it. >.> but I'm sure you won't be able to find those statistics anywhere.

... the insurance premiums have increased 100% in the last 10 years. They won't accept anyone ANYONE with pre-existing conditions.
Many companies bundle insurance with salary. Insurance doesn't exist when you loose your job to MS, no matter how much you were earning.

Sick employees? Fail. People to sick to be employees? Fail.
50% of US bankruptcies being financial? Fail.

Also, while the stats I quoted may be old, they're still the same now. The US still spends twice the percentage of GDP of any other developed nation, and still has shorter life expectancies, and neo-natal deaths. (I'm not sure how else to say child-birth deaths of children). And of the mothers too.

I'm not sure what part of this is not fail.