Why do so many Americans think the US has the best Health Care system in the world?

Funny, I could think of 40 some odd million Americans that would take healthcare coverage from ANYWHERE rather than the complete lack of coverage they have now. The asker is absolutely right. It is absurd that we are so wealthy and are barely above a country that I've never heard of in the healthcare rankings.

All these people making fun of Slovenia is proving the point. How scary is it that a place like Slovenia has the same ranking as the US? No, I wouldn't want to go to Slovenia for health care, because of it's poor ranking; therefore, it stands to reason that I wouldn't want the health care from here, because it too, has a similar ranking.

Americans are afraid of change. I think there is also this notion that some Americans are less deserving than other Americans, and we really need to get past this. If America is THAT great (and I think it is) then all Americans deserve equal care.

There are some in this u . s . who make it a factor to unfold mendacity propaganda. They understand what they are asserting is lies, yet they are asserting it besides reason it serves their schedule. to illustrate, for years all we heard became the "monetary equipment is booming" whilst every person with a suggestions knew there have been some severe concerns underlying the monetary equipment. yet they saved repeating the lie reason it demonstrated and disguised the gutting of the yank known of residing that became taking place. comparable difficulty may well be pronounced of No new child left at the back of...a plan to bypass away no new child left at the back of rather does precisely that it leaves toddlers at the back of who're in underfunded overcrowded poorer districts jointly as helpful people who're greater useful off. so why you ask? approximately well being care.....properly if the lie is concept that it is the ideal well being care equipment because of the fact that's the placement the place the wealthy human beings of the international includes get taken care of..which may well be authentic...yet that doesn't make it the "ultimate" well being systems...it only skill its the final for the prosperous. what with regard to the middle classification and the undesirable ?? is it the final for them whilst they artwork and their corporation aspects no assurance? and in the event that they choose assurance for his or her family individuals they might desire to pay $900 a month for some good assurance? jointly as paying exhorbitant mortgages on exhorbitantly priced housing, checklist gasoline expenditures, and declining wages as a results of outsouring of jobs and insourcing of slave hard artwork? PROPAGANDA MY pal.......THATS ALL that's.

You neglect the Unconstitutional aspect of any public health plan legislation.

Your statistics are based on entirely different information gathering methods.

You evade and ignore basic economic law that renders all of this improbably and impossible.

You ignore that this is central planning.

You witlessly assume that doctors and various practitioners are on-board with this due to the superiority of the system rather than understand it insulates them from competition and allows them to work at the bear minimum of standards.

You fall prey to class envy, class warfare, and propaganda.

You, like so many other here, amusingly assume that the rising cost of insurance and health care is due to "greed" or "rich white business owners". You couldn't be further from the truth. The health care industry is one of the least competitive industries we have. It's riddled with unions, restrictions, regulations, mandates, and control. Couple that with the fact that we're living longer, we're fatter, out of shape, and rely more and more on large-group policy so individual incentive is all but destroyed. The mentality is "Insurance will/should pay for it".

People want every conceivable visit and procedure covered under insurance, and since insurance is shared risk and shared cost, the prices go up and up and up as the providers have to pay for everything. Imagine how expensive your car or insurance would be if it paid for gas, tune ups, washes, tires, etc. Health insurance is no longer insurance, it's full-coverage payments. Insurance is intended as protection from catastrophe.

You're attacking the results rather than the cause. What we need is reform for the absence and removal of government, not more government.

Government can stop spending on everything else and still not have enough money to provide health care. There are a host of reasons for this. Primarily, you must understand that health care is a scarce resource like anything else in the world. You can no more provide everyone with everything they need at any given time than you could provide everyone with beach-front property. Demand will almost instantly exceed supply as now the individual is no longer self-governed by price. You invite lower skilled workers and poor-performing workers as now the incentive for business is lost - it's now non-profit (on the backs of the tax payers). You can kiss high quality care, innovation, and technological and pharmaceutical advances goodbye.

Throwing out the Constitution (which they already have), and some of the economic principles, just ask yourself this question:

Would you rather a non-profit neurosurgeon operate on you who is paid regardless of the outcome, or would you prefer a for-profit neurosurgeon who's very livelihood depends on the success of the procedure and "repeat business"?

Those rankings everyone points to gives too much weight to a country that has universal health care ranking countries who have crap medical care, but give that crap to everyone over a country who supplies quality care to most of its people

They also dont take into account the fact that Slovenia is only having to work with under 2 million people for heir health care where as we are working with 360 million

That is 180 times more people.

ADDITION: it is just like those global foot print calculators, I went on to one of those and entered my info and it said it would take me 6 planets to live the way i do, but I redid the test and entered all of the same information except I put I was from germany instead of the US and it said I would only use 1/4 of a planet.

Same info, but somehow someone from germany using the same amount of stuff affects the planet 24 times less than someone from the US

Both rankings skew the information to fit who they want to look good and who looks bad

ADDITION

sigh* it's not a population based survey. Go to the bottom of the first link to see criteria used.

That is my point exactly, they don't take population into consideration, it is a lot easier to provide health care for 2 mill verses 360 mil becuase you will have a higher amount of people out of 360 mil who are not paying into the tax system or not working than you will in a country of 2 mill.

I'm for health care reform, but 37th isnt that bad. the list is full of tiny european countries like luxembourg and san marino- they have many distinct advantages over us. its hard to have a good health care rating for a very large country like the US. Canada is 30, australia is 32nd... Russia and China and Brazil are in the 100s... I think Canada and Australia are probably the most comparable to the US and they are just slightly ahead of us. It could be better, but it isnt as bad as you make it out to be, purposely listing a eastern block country as being next to us to be misleading. I dont think the actual care is the reason we need health care reform. the health care, when you can access it, is generally good, until it bankrupts you.

because they confuse health services with health care. Health services refer to the doctors we have and the treatment we can get. We have the best doctors and treatment available, hands down. But health care refers to access to those services and the cost of treatment. You can have the best doctors in the world, but if you can't pay for it, it doesn't matter how good they are. Since health care is rated by the quality of the doctors and accessibility to treatment, it shouldn't be a surprise that we're ranked 37th.

If you want change, support a government option (NOT A SINGLE-PAYER SYSTEM). A government option will challenge the insurance companies to make their products more easily accessible (and beneficial for the consumer) because, if the government plan is better than the insurance companies' plan, guess who's going to lose?

Right or wrong, it is about control and freedom. There are many in this world who are perfectly willing to pay more for an inferior product as long as they get to make the decisions.

The second main point is that, more so than any other country in the world, Americans have an inherent distrust of big government. I think we are more zealous about this than are any other people in the world.

These two mentalities and fears will always trump any data you might provide regarding rankings. Sorry. That is just the way it is in many people's minds.

I keep seeing this stupid poll of health care. Find a more suitable argument and leave this non-sense alone. If you'll notice, China is 144th with 1,332,470,000 people. India is 112th with 1,167,830,000 people and U.S. is 37th with 307,183,000 people. Indonesia is right behind us in population and they are 92nd. Point is that this is a population biased survey that has nothing to do with anything. Of the top ten Japan is the only country with over 100,000,000 people, the rest are all small countries with little population comparatively. So find a new argument, it's demographics that has to do with this ranking system.

It depends on what you want and how you determine it.

Imagine going to the doctor in Japan complaining of pain, the doctor does some tests and says nothing is wrong with you. The doctor may give you some pain pills. Three months later you died from cancer. Sen. Kennedy would have died if he used a Japanese doctor. That's how it works in Japan.

Got breast cancer in Germany? You have less than a 50% chance of given the key medication that over 80% in the U.S. get.

The U.S. outspends all of Europe 2 to 1 in medical R&D and creates twice as much new medical technology than Europe which has a greater population and pays more taxes.

Also in Europe and other socialist medical systems, the big stuff might be outsourced. Eastern Europe and India are two popular places you might be sent to get work done. People in the U.S. generally do not like to travel for health care.

Germany population growth -.053% death rate 10.9 per 1,000

France population growth rate .549% death rate 8.56 per 1,000

United Kingdom growth rate .279% death rate 10.65 per 1,000

Canada growth rate .817% death rate 7.74% per 1,000

Japan growth rate -.191% death rate 9.54 per 1,000

United States growth rate .957% death rate 8.38 per 1,000

Germany and Japan are imploding and there are other factors determining the health of the countries. All of those countries that have supposed better care are shaving their militaries to the point where they can't even defend pirates off their coast. They are also raising taxes,shutting out immigrants, lowering their world wide charity expenses and doing other things suggesting they are trying to head off their implosion. Some are even paying people to have babies. Those countries are sacrificing their very existence over health care which their systems are very inefficient at.

Wisconsin's co-opt structure ranks 49th in spending in the U.S., but gives 98% of it's citizens access to care with over 88% (higher than the U.S. average) insured. The Democrats hate co-ops, even in Wisconsin. Sen. Pelonsi also hates co-ops so it probably won't be a choice on the federal level.