US Healthcare - unbelievable!

loldog

Just looking at social sites you encounter from time to time everyday stories of US citizens and what happens to them when they get ill. It sounds barbarous to someone like me who grew up with state healthcare.

Take for example this story:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/c4et2/iama_34_year_old_mother_of_a_3_year_old_little/

and a comment from someone in response:

My son was the same way. He got injured on the job, got short term disability, got let go because he wasn't on the job, lost his insurance, and now he's in pain with no medicine and unable to get a job because he cannot be on his feet for more than 20 minutes without some operations, physical therapy, or pain meds.

So, the question is, are we just too mollycoddled in Europe? Can we afford to continue providing our levels of healthcare? Will we end up like the situation in the US? it scares me to read these stories.

.

Iwasfrozen

loldog wrote: »

So, the question is, are we just too mollycoddled in Europe?

No, America should be like us not the other way around.

loldog wrote: »

Can we afford to continue providing our levels of healthcare?

As long as people pay their tax then yes.

loldog wrote: »

Will we end up like the situation in the US? it scares me to read these stories.

No, different political culture. America cares more about the insurance company then the person. Europe is the opposite.

DeVore

I broke my leg skiing in Canada (which is actually better then America for medical).

They demanded 1750 canadian dollars even though I was showing them insurance papers worth 12 Million C$.

When I couldn't produce a credit card, they took me out of the ambulance and left me on a stretcher in the ski resort car park, high off my head on morpheine.


yeah. :eek:

DeV.
(I phoned my brother in law at home in the middle of the night and got his CC and they put me back in the ambulance... its a hell of a sales technique!)

rightwingdub

And socialized medicine has really worked in Ireland:rolleyes:

Iwasfrozen

rightwingdub wrote: »

And socialized medicine has really worked in Ireland:rolleyes:

It has worked. Ireland has an extremely low infant mortality rate of 5.05 deaths/1,000 live births according to ther cia.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ei.html

rightwingdub

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

It has worked. Ireland has an extremely low infant mortality rate of 5.05 deaths/1,000 live births according to ther cia.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ei.html

How about all the over staffed pen pushing administrators, nurses and middle managers, would that I condoned in a private healthcare system, Ithink not.

Iwasfrozen

rightwingdub wrote: »

How about all the over staffed pen pushing administrators, nurses and middle managers, would that I condoned in a private healthcare system, Ithink not.

You compleatly ignored my point that Ireland has one of the best health care systems in the world. But let's look at America where the majority of people are not covered by medicare and must buy insurance shall we ?

Americas infant morality rate is 6.22 deaths/1,000 live births they are in 180th place out of 224 countries !
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Oh and for the record not all pen pushers are useless, obviously we need someone to keep the books.

rightwingdub

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You compleatly ignored my point that Ireland has one of the best health care systems in the world. But let's look at America where the majority of people are not covered by medicare and must buy insurance shall we ?

Americas infant morality rate is 6.22 deaths/1,000 live births they are in 180th place out of 224 countries !
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html

Oh and for the record not all pen pushers are useless, obviously we need someone to keep the books.

I never said all pen pushers were useless, all I said that the HSE is overstaffed with administrators, don't even get me started on the demarcation trade union work practices that exist in the HSE.

PeakOutput

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

You compleatly ignored my point that Ireland has one of the best health care systems in the world.

woah woah woah

please before anything else is said provide a link to prove that

Iwasfrozen

rightwingdub wrote: »

I never said all pen pushers were useless, all I said that the HSE is overstaffed with administrators, don't even get me started on the demarcation trade union work practices that exist in the HSE.

Regardless I prefare to let the statistics speak for themselves and the statistics say Ireland isn't all that badly of with regards to health care.

Although I agree with you on the Union hating front...

rightwingdub

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Regardless I prefare to let the statistics speak for themselves and the statistics say Ireland isn't all that badly of with regards to health care.

Although I agree with you on the Union hating front...

No healthcare system is perfect and Ireland's health system is no exception to that rule, however, I firmly believe that private health care is far more efficient than statist health care in Ireland, for instance in the public system you can't even get an xray at weekends where it is available in the private system, that is ridicoulous.

Iwasfrozen

rightwingdub wrote: »

No healthcare system is perfect and Ireland's health system is no exception to that rule, however, I firmly believe that private health care is far more efficient than statist health care in Ireland, for instance in the public system you can't even get an xray at weekends where it is available in the private system, that is ridicoulous.

Do you think that could perhaps be because private hospitals have more money ?

rightwingdub

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you think that could perhaps be because private hospitals have more money ?

It might be because there are more flexible work practices in the private health system, also most private hosiptals aren't over staffed.

PeakOutput

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you think that could perhaps be because private hospitals have more money ?

or because private hospitals need to make money and cant jsut decide to go home on fridays cause their unions wont let them work the weekend with triple pay or some such ridicolous demand

or because the unions have inflated the prices so much that we simply cant afford to pay for the two extra days care?

so no link to show ireland is one of the best healthcare systems in the world?

rubensni

PeakOutput wrote: »

woah woah woah

please before anything else is said provide a link to prove that

Our system isn't that bad by international comparison. Nobody here is happy with it, because we all can see ways it can be improved. Don't come after me as some defender of Harney, because believe me I'm anything but.

We spend relatively little on health care: 7.5% of GDP in 2007. Compare that to the US, who as a percentage, spend twice as much as we do on healthcare (16% of GDP) but get lower results than us in average life expectancy and infant mortality.
Even when compared to other European countries we're misers: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Switzerland all spent over 10% of GDP on healthcare in 2007.

rightwingdub

rubensni wrote: »

Our system isn't that bad by international comparison. Nobody here is happy with it, because we all can see ways it can be improved. Don't come after me as some defender of Harney, because believe me I'm anything but.

We spend relatively little on health care: 7.5% of GDP in 2007. Compare that to the US, who as a percentage, spend twice as much as we do on healthcare (16% of GDP) but get lower results than us in average life expectancy and infant mortality.
Even when compared to other European countries we're misers: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany and Switzerland all spent over 10% of GDP on healthcare in 2007.

The government has tripled healthcare spending since 1997 and yet there has been no improvement in the health service, throwing money at the healthsystem is not the solution to problems in the health service, privatsiation is the way to go. At least then there would be more flexible work practices where the health service is run for the customer not the trade unions.

PeakOutput

rubensni wrote: »

Our system isn't that bad by international comparison. Nobody here is happy with it, because we all can see ways it can be improved. Don't come after me as some defender of Harney, because believe me I'm anything but.

i dont think we have particularly bad system i just dont believe its one of the best in the world or near it...at all

rubensni

rightwingdub wrote: »

The government has tripled healthcare spending since 1997 and yet there has been no improvement in the health service, throwing money at the healthsystem is not the solution to problems in the health service, privatsiation is the way to go. At least then there would be more flexible work practices where the health service is run for the customer not the trade unions.

Healthcare has improved since 1997 because life expectancy has risen sharply and infant mortality has declined since then.

As for your privatise argument, nowhere in the world has a "privatised" system. In Ireland, 80% of the healthcare money comes from the state. That is high, but even in the most "privatised" systems over half the money still comes from government.

In both the US and Mexico over 40% of money spent on healthcare comes from private citizens, but both have lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than Ireland.

rubensni

PeakOutput wrote: »

i dont think we have particularly bad system i just dont believe its one of the best in the world or near it...at all

How do you rank it? I've left out obesity rates, vaccination rates, and smoking rates. Now, Ireland scores badly in all of them, but I left them out as I don't think they fit in with what is being debated here - healthcare as meaning ambulances and hospitals as opposed to a holistic "health of the population" comparison.

At the end of the day no comparison is perfect, but I'd take my chances here ahead of 90% of the countries in the world. It could be a lot better, but it's not that bad where we are now.

Lockstep

The US spends around $6k per person on healthcare and has a much lower lower life expectancy than France (spends around $3k pp) and the UK ($2.5k) If I remember rightly, France's system is ranked as the most consumer friendly in the world.

Source; Paul Krugman, The Healthcare Imperative.

Don't blame it all on statism. Labour called for universal health insurance and was told by the government it would cost too much. Instead, the HSE was brought it. We certainly don't have a great healthcare system but I'd say overall it's much better than the US as everyone has access.

Pride Fighter

rightwingdub wrote: »

The government has tripled healthcare spending since 1997 and yet there has been no improvement in the health service, throwing money at the healthsystem is not the solution to problems in the health service, privatsiation is the way to go. At least then there would be more flexible work practices where the health service is run for the customer not the trade unions.

They are called patients not customers. Private heath care such as that in America has proven to be a disaster for the less well off. There is a thing in medicine called the hypocratic oath. It is a violation of that oath and of any human decency to turn away a person from a hospital just cause they cannot pay for their treatment.

rightwingdub

Pride Fighter wrote: »

They are called patients not customers. Private heath care such as that in America has proven to be a disaster for the less well off. There is a thing in medicine called the hypocratic oath. It is a violation of that oath and of any human decency to turn away a person from a hospital just cause they cannot pay for their treatment.

I do believe that health insurance should be provided in cases of catostrophic illness, i don't have a problem with that, Milton Friedman believed that health insurance should be provided in cases of actostophic, however, you are letting emotional sentiment get in the way of hard nosed financial reality.

Annasopra

rightwingdub wrote: »

And socialized medicine has really worked in Ireland:rolleyes:

Socialized medicine? You're having a laugh! Our health care system is nowhere near 'socialized'

dlofnep

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Socialized medicine? You're having a laugh! Our health care system is nowhere near 'socialized'

The clue is in his name

irishh_bob

rightwingdub wrote: »

It might be because there are more flexible work practices in the private health system, also most private hosiptals aren't over staffed.

aint that the truth , i recentley underwent a minor proceedure in a private clinic in dublin , to my surprise , i not only witnessed nurses serveing toast and tea to patients , i witnessed them push beds down to theatre and back up to wards , that didnt happen anytime i stayed in a public hospital , mr janitor and miss nurses attendeant had thier time to shine

rightwingdub

irishh_bob wrote: »

aint that the truth , i recentley underwent a minor proceedure in a private clinic in dublin , to my surprise , i not only witnessed nurses serve toast and tea to patients , i witnessed them push beds down to theatre and back up to wards , that didnt happen anytime i stayed in a public hospital

I hope your now in fine health:), actually my mothers next door neighbour had to get her appendix removed in a private hospital in Dublin, her eyes nearly oppoed out of her head in pleasant surpirise when she was handed a lunch and dinner menu with the vaiety of option available, she only asked for toast and she ws told that due to health and safety regulations the hospital wasn't allowed to have a toaster but apart from that which was no fault of the hospital she was superbly treated and the nurses treated her like a customer and she has recomended this particular hospital to friends who find themselves in the unfortunate position of having to undergo a medical precedure.

Jaysus nurses pushing beds to theatres and back to wards, what would the INMO be thinking, they must expel any union members who are there to help patients:rolleyes:

fontanalis

rightwingdub wrote: »

And socialized medicine has really worked in Ireland:rolleyes:

Nice Fox buzzword, the US has "socialised" medicine in medicare. The problem in the US is accessabilty and affordability if you get shafted by an insurance company. But I agree to an extent, Irish people can't mock another countries health care system.

Manic Moran

rubensni wrote: »

In both the US and Mexico over 40% of money spent on healthcare comes from private citizens, but both have lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than Ireland.

Though an interesting statistic, depending on how it's calculated, you can't assume it's automatically a function of the healthcare system. For example, the death rate from traffic accidents is 50% higher in the US than it is in Ireland: Americans are dependant on the automobile, and, frankly, drive like idiots. Not the fault of the healthcare system, and I don't care how good your system is, breathing Los Angeles smog cannot be good for your long term prospects. Similarly, as a nation with lots of swimming pools and nice warm beaches, the death rate from drowning is seven times higher than that of the UK. The death rate from wild animals in the US is, I believe, pretty near to infinitely higher than that of Ireland: When's the last time an Irish five-month-old was taken by a bear? We're even fighting more wars, with more people killed in military training accidents. When you have people living in the Nebraska countryside where an ambulance will take nearly an hour just to get to you, people will be dying who might otherwise be saved in Ireland where most ambulances aren't more than a half-hour away.

If the infant mortality rate is simply 'Number of kids who make it to age 3 divided by number of kids born', or the life expectancy is simply 'sum of all ages of people when they died divided by the number of people in the sample', then even if the healthcare systems were identical, the US would come out the worse for the comparison.

NTM

Lockstep

But death rates in the US are fairly low, behind even the UK, France, Norway and Spain.

Despite this, they have a lower life expectancy than all of these countries.

Gigiwagga

Harney is all for following the American model as opposed to the general european model unfortunately, we 're all *****d.

Manic Moran

kickoutthejams wrote: »

But death rates in the US are fairly low, behind even the UK, France, Norway and Spain.

As the preface to that table points out, it's pretty raw data which cannot really lead to any conclusions. For example, age distribution is critical: If the US has a younger population than the other countries, drawing such a conclusion is useless.
NTM

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

As the preface to that table points out, it's pretty raw data which cannot really lead to any conclusions. For example, factors like immigration and birth rates will affect the death rate per 1,000 of population. The US's population growth rate is almost twice that of France, three times higher than the UK's and Norway's population growth rate, and over ten times that of Spain. As a result, as the population increases faster in the US, an equal 'real' death rate would show up as lower as a percentage of population.

NTM

I completely agree; it is very raw data. As is the amounts that die from things like road accidents and bear attacks.
However, I'm not sure that the fact Americans die more from things like road accidents and bear attacks can explain their lower life expectancy.
Death rates aren't correlated against birth rates; they're counted per 1000 of the population, regardless of birth rate.

At it's heart, life expectancy is the best way of determining the health and longevity of a nation. THe US' is surprisingly low for such a wealthy nation.

DeVore

The US makes it mandatory to have car insurance but optional to have health insurance.



Because cars are important.

DeV.

Manic Moran

kickoutthejams wrote: »

I completely agree; it is very raw data. As is the amounts that die from things like road accidents and bear attacks.
However, I'm not sure that the fact Americans die more from things like road accidents and bear attacks can explain their lower life expectancy.
Death rates aren't correlated against birth rates; they're counted per 1000 of the population, regardless of birth rate.

At it's heart, life expectancy is the best way of determining the health and longevity of a nation. THe US' is surprisingly low for such a wealthy nation.

For the record you'll note I've edited my post you quoted. I've not sat down to figure out if the logic was entirely correct, but I'm fairly sure the age discrimination comment is accurate.

NTM

Overheal

Also bear in mind the unfortunate gun violence and greater homocide rate, which would (should?) be factored into averaging life expectancy. There is also the obesity rate but Ireland is no lean brisket herself these days.

DeVore wrote: »

The US makes it mandatory to have car insurance but optional to have health insurance.



Because cars are important.

DeV.

We got hung up on that in US Pol a few months ago.

Arguably, nobody forces you to drive a car. Its a choice. Mandatory Cover is tied in with that choice. As is licensing, and in most states, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is also tied to licensing requirements. But its also a purely optional endeavor: you do not need to own a firearm. You don't need to drive a car.

Funnily enough most Americans don't like the idea of Government telling them what to buy. Much less making it mandatory on penalty of fines or jail time for failing to comply with new Healthcare law which is to come into effect, which demands every living breathing American spend money on some form of Insurance with only few exceptions. And only because they are living and breathing.

When you get right down to it you don't have to do anything. You can't be taxed if you choose to earn no income, for instance. Or pay Sales Tax if you don't buy anything.

Laminations

rightwingdub wrote: »

I do believe that health insurance should be provided in cases of catostrophic illness, i don't have a problem with that, Milton Friedman believed that health insurance should be provided in cases of actostophic, however, you are letting emotional sentiment get in the way of hard nosed financial reality.

and when your granny starts costing you too much you'll put a pillow over her face. Private health care is a far better system only for those that can afford it. Yes currently people may only be able to get an xray during weekday working hours and under a private system you may get one at weekends but under such a system a poor person could never get one, any day of the week. And insurance companies would cherry pick the healthier customers, something they are already trying to do.

Frankly i'd rather have a heart than a hard nose

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

For the record you'll note I've edited my post you quoted. I've not sat down to figure out if the logic was entirely correct, but I'm fairly sure the age discrimination comment is accurate.

NTM

Could you expand on this? Having a higher population growth or a birth rate does not change the predicted life expectancy of the average citizen.

Manic Moran

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Could you expand on this? Having a higher population growth or a birth rate does not change the predicted life expectancy of the average citizen.

Distribution, not discrimination, sorry.

Age distribution is absolutely relevant to the death rate all other things being equal. To take an exteme example, let's say that some African country has a life expectancy of 40 years, but each adult is quite prolific and has seven kids. The average age of the country is going to be very young, and the population is going to be increasing, by and large. Because you have three kids being born for every 40-year-old dying, the percentage of people dying as a proportion of population as a whole is artificially low.

On the other hand, a nation full of nothing but WWI veterans, who had almost no kids at all is going to have a death rate as a percentage of population artificially very high, simply because so much of the population is dying off. And will likely be having a decrease in population overall. Yet the life expectancy would be about 110. You simply cannot correlate death rate with life expectancy absent context.

So in hindsight, my initial post was probably somewhat correct. Although you cannot automatically correlate population growth with a decrease in average age (Things like immigration will also factor), it is pretty much an indicator that the nation is one where kids are being born faster than old geezers are dying off.

NTM

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Distribution, not discrimination, sorry.

Age distribution is absolutely relevant to the death rate all other things being equal. To take an exteme example, let's say that some African country has a life expectancy of 40 years, but each adult is quite prolific and has seven kids. The average age of the country is going to be very young, and the population is going to be increasing, by and large. Because you have three kids being born for every 40-year-old dying, the percentage of people dying as a proportion of population as a whole is artificially low.

On the other hand, a nation full of nothing but WWI veterans, who had almost no kids at all is going to have a death rate as a percentage of population artificially very high, simply because so much of the population is dying off. And will likely be having a decrease in population overall. Yet the life expectancy would be about 110. You simply cannot correlate death rate with life expectancy absent context.

So in hindsight, my initial post was probably somewhat correct. Although you cannot automatically correlate population growth with a decrease in average age (Things like immigration will also factor), it is pretty much an indicator that the nation is one where kids are being born faster than old geezers are dying off.

NTM

Your logic relies on there being life expectancy having a correlation between birth and death rates. It's not deaths as a proportion of the population it's deaths per thousand. Thus the death rates in a small country like Ireland can be correlated with the death rates of a large country by India.

We are discussing death rates, not growth rates.

rovert

rightwingdub doesnt like socialised heathcare....shocking

oppenheimer1

PeakOutput wrote: »

or because private hospitals need to make money and cant jsut decide to go home on fridays cause their unions wont let them work the weekend with triple pay or some such ridicolous demand

or because the unions have inflated the prices so much that we simply cant afford to pay for the two extra days care?

so no link to show ireland is one of the best healthcare systems in the world?

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

19th in the World, not bad. Granted the survey was 10 years ago as WHO no longer rank nations healthcare. I would expect we have improved since then, as mortality rates have dropped.

rubensni

Manic Moran wrote: »

Though an interesting statistic, depending on how it's calculated, you can't assume it's automatically a function of the healthcare system. For example, the death rate from traffic accidents is 50% higher in the US than it is in Ireland: Americans are dependant on the automobile, and, frankly, drive like idiots. Not the fault of the healthcare system, and I don't care how good your system is, breathing Los Angeles smog cannot be good for your long term prospects. Similarly, as a nation with lots of swimming pools and nice warm beaches, the death rate from drowning is seven times higher than that of the UK. The death rate from wild animals in the US is, I believe, pretty near to infinitely higher than that of Ireland: When's the last time an Irish five-month-old was taken by a bear? We're even fighting more wars, with more people killed in military training accidents. When you have people living in the Nebraska countryside where an ambulance will take nearly an hour just to get to you, people will be dying who might otherwise be saved in Ireland where most ambulances aren't more than a half-hour away.

If the infant mortality rate is simply 'Number of kids who make it to age 3 divided by number of kids born', or the life expectancy is simply 'sum of all ages of people when they died divided by the number of people in the sample', then even if the healthcare systems were identical, the US would come out the worse for the comparison.

NTM

Jaysus, MM, I'm not living at all

I accept your point that no comparison is exact, but the leading causes of death are the same: cardiovascular and cancer.

Dob74

I have to say I found healthcare in the states for superior to this country.
I must state I had private health insurance through employer.

Personally its this simple if we want a good health system we have to pay for it.
Private health care in the states is extermly expensive, you cant afford it unless you are very rich or your empolyer provides it.(Any employer with more than 10 workers must have some kind of health cover)
Peresonally I would go for the continental model, but in this country forgot it.
It will never happen.

Manic Moran

kickoutthejams wrote: »

It's not deaths as a proportion of the population it's deaths per thousand.

Per thousand whats? Per thousand seconds? Diagnoses of obesity? Anteaters in the wild in the nation? It's per thousand people, which by definition is a proportion of the population. If a large portion of the population is young, the proportion of people dying, all else being the same, is going to be smaller. Hell, the CIA web page you linked to says as much:

This indicator is significantly affected by age distribution, and most countries will eventually show a rise in the overall death rate, in spite of continued decline in mortality at all ages, as declining fertility results in an aging population.

but the leading causes of death are the same: cardiovascular and cancer.

I'm sure they are. but how many causes of un-natural death does the US have that Ireland doesn't? They all count in the grand total. (And besides, if cardiovascular is correlated to obesity rates, the problem isn't the US's healthcare system, it's the US's very extensive network of junk food sales points).

NTM

northwest100

Manic Moran.

What are your views on TRICARE?

Is it a good system in the US?

Manic Moran

I have not had any issues with quality of care. If it's efficient or not, though, I have no idea.

NTM

Dude111

DeVore wrote:

When I couldn't produce a credit card, they took me out of the ambulance and left me on a stretcher in the ski resort car park, high off my head on morpheine.

In canada this happend??

Im so sorry...... I thought this country (USA) was the only place stuff like that occured.....

The GOVT here wants full control it seems and they keep working deeper and deeper into people's lives.... ITS SAD THERE ARENT ENOUGH PEOPLE TO "WAKE UP" AND SEE WHATS HAPPENING HERE!

fontanalis

Dude111 wrote: »

In canada this happend??

Im so sorry...... I thought this country (USA) was the only place stuff like that occured.....

The GOVT here wants full control it seems and they keep working deeper and deeper into people's lives.... ITS SAD THERE ARENT ENOUGH PEOPLE TO "WAKE UP" AND SEE WHATS HAPPENING HERE!

Stop watching Gllen Beck and Michelle Bachman, funny no-one got worked up when Bush expanded medicare to be funded from the deficit.

Dude111

Not to worry mate,I DONT WATCH THOSE CLOWNS

Lockstep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Per thousand whats? Per thousand seconds? Diagnoses of obesity? Anteaters in the wild in the nation? It's per thousand people, which by definition is a proportion of the population. If a large portion of the population is young, the proportion of people dying, all else being the same, is going to be smaller. Hell, the CIA web page you linked to says as much:

And Ireland has a younger population than the US.

It also has a lower median age

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm sure they are. but how many causes of un-natural death does the US have that Ireland doesn't? They all count in the grand total. (And besides, if cardiovascular is correlated to obesity rates, the problem isn't the US's healthcare system, it's the US's very extensive network of junk food sales points).

NTM

PAul Krugman goes into this in the Healthcare Imperative. I lent my friend my copy but I'll try and dig it out for here. He calls it the BUt We Eat More Cheeseburgers doctrine which doesn't actually account for that much difference in the US.

PeakOutput

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

19th in the World, not bad. Granted the survey was 10 years ago as WHO no longer rank nations healthcare. I would expect we have improved since then, as mortality rates have dropped.

i agree our healthcare system isnt bad

but for how much we pay for it its terrible and mortality rates do not a good system make

life expectancies infant mortality rates etc etc from what iv read have more to do with the wealth of a society then its health care system