Euro Healthcare vs US Healthcare

[CrimsonProf]

So I'm sitting at the eye doctor a few months back, and the doc starts to opine about why European style health care won't in the US. One of her primary reasons was that the genetic homogeneity in most European countries, particularly Scandinavia, made it easier to prevent and treat diseases. It also, in her estimation, made it easier to predict costs since insurers and medical experts knew what to expect.

On the surface, this makes a great deal of sense. I threw this out for discussion with friends and two pro-Obamacare Democrats were quick to dismiss the idea as nonsense.

What say all of you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[92tide]

a quick google search shows a lot of research that, based on the abstracts, shows that genetic diversity limits the spread of disease. couldn't find anything specifically addressing treatment.

 

[CrimsonProf]

That's deeply unfair. I'm not carrying water for the doctor - I don't even remember her name - but that's not what she's getting at.

Listening to sports radio in Birmingham, there's a commercial almost every hour about the need for men of Asian descent to get checked for Hep A/B. Repeat that over and over again several times and it does drive up costs - it's a statement of fact, not a declaration of superiority.

It's like if you have a house with zero food allergies, all of a sudden you can lower your grocery bill because you're no longer worried about peanuts, gluten, wheat germ, etc. Doesn't make you better than the neighbors but it does change the equation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[92tide]

here is something i found about men of asian decent and hep (from cdc)

Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and Chronic Hepatitis B
Key Facts
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) make up less than 5% of the total population in the United States, but account for more than 50% of nearly one million Americans living with chronic hepatitis B.
The burden of chronic hepatitis B in the US is greater among people born in regions of the world with high or moderate prevalence of chronic hepatitis B, including much of Asia and the Pacific Islands.
Nearly 70% of Asian Americans are foreign-born and estimates have found that approximately 58% of foreign-born people with chronic hepatitis B are from Asia
Left untreated, approximately 15% to 25% of those with chronic hepatitis B infection develop serious liver disease, including cirrhosis, liver damage, and even liver cancer
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are 8-13 times more likely to develop liver cancer than other groups, primarily due to hepatitis B infection
The liver cancer death rate is 60% higher for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders than Caucasians
Hepatitis B Testing Recommendation for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
CDC recommend testing the following groups for hepatitis B:

All people born in regions of the world with high or moderate rates of hepatitis B. This includes all countries in Asia and the Pacific Islands
All people born in the United States, who were not vaccinated at birth, and who have at least one parent born in a country with high hepatitis B rates. This includes all countries in East and Southeast Asia, except for Japan, and the Pacific Islands
Household contacts and sexual partners of people with hepatitis B.

 

[cbi1972]

a quick google search shows a lot of research that, based on the abstracts, shows that genetic diversity limits the spread of disease. couldn't find anything specifically addressing treatment.

but, on it's face, the eye doctor's opinion seems to be hinting at a sort of natural superiority for genetic homogeneity.

If you don't read too much into it, and accept the premise at face value, absent any inference about the superiority of one nationality or race vs, another, it is at least plausible that a health care system with a homogeneous population might benefit from being able to focus on a relatively narrow set of conditions, regardless of overall health.

Imagine having three kids that like baseball. Great, you can take them all to the ballpark and they can join their age group and have fun.

But if one likes baseball, another likes football, and another one breaks out into a rash when exposed to sunlight, then it's a lot harder to figure out something that works for everyone.

 

[92tide]

If you don't read too much into it, and accept the premise at face value, absent any inference about the superiority of one nationality or race vs, another, it is at least plausible that a health care system with a homogeneous population might benefit from being able to focus on a relatively narrow set of conditions, regardless of overall health.

Imagine having three kids that like baseball. Great, you can take them all to the ballpark and they can join their age group and have fun.

But if one likes baseball, another likes football, and another one breaks out into a rash when exposed to sunlight, then it's a lot harder to figure out something that works for everyone.

i just find it hard to accept the premise at face value. i think the entire premise is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. jmho, of course

 

[92tide]

That's deeply unfair. I'm not carrying water for the doctor - I don't even remember her name - but that's not what she's getting at.

Listening to sports radio in Birmingham, there's a commercial almost every hour about the need for men of Asian descent to get checked for Hep A/B. Repeat that over and over again several times and it does drive up costs - it's a statement of fact, not a declaration of superiority.

It's like if you have a house with zero food allergies, all of a sudden you can lower your grocery bill because you're no longer worried about peanuts, gluten, wheat germ, etc. Doesn't make you better than the neighbors but it does change the equation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i have edited my response to remove that part. sorry about that. i still don't think her point makes sense when extrapolated to a broader population.

 

[jthomas666]

i just find it hard to accept the premise at face value. i think the entire premise is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. jmho, of course

If you're not averse to further oversimplification...

It's not so much that one race is inherently healthier than another; rather, each race has its own health quirks.

Most dog breeds have some sort of congenital issue--prone to cancer, hip dysplasia, back problems. Over time, selective breeding results in selective INbreeding. Mixed breed animals have what's sometimes referred to as "hybrid vigor"--they tend to be more resistant to diseases in general.

 

[92tide]

If you're not averse to further oversimplification...

It's not so much that one race is inherently healthier than another; rather, each race has it's own health quirks.

Most dog breeds have some sort of congenital issue--prone to cancer, hip dysplasia, back problems. Over time, selective breeding results in selective INbreeding. Mixed breed animals have what's sometimes referred to as "hybrid vigor"--they tend to be more resistant to diseases in general.

i think folks from different geographical areas tend to have their own quirks (see the link above), my issue with this kind of thing is, the concept of race (and classification by race) is not a scientific (or medical) concept [hence, my superiority overreaction to the op]. so while, yes there may be quirks, i don't think that that in and of itself is enough to make a significant difference in the grand scheme of healthcare provision across an entire population (excepting possibly some extremely homogenous outlier such as japan or maybe the scandanavian kingdoms as mentioned above).

it would follow from your dog analogy that the u.s. should have more health vigor than we have, as we are a bunch of mutts.

 

[RTR91]

If you're not averse to further oversimplification...

It's not so much that one race is inherently healthier than another; rather, each race has it's own health quirks.

Most dog breeds have some sort of congenital issue--prone to cancer, hip dysplasia, back problems. Over time, selective breeding results in selective INbreeding. Mixed breed animals have what's sometimes referred to as "hybrid vigor"--they tend to be more resistant to diseases in general.

Now you're just stereotyping.

 

[seebell]

All I know is that we spend more money with poorer results.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

So I'm sitting at the eye doctor a few months back, and the doc starts to opine about why European style health care won't in the US. One of her primary reasons was that the genetic homogeneity in most European countries, particularly Scandinavia, made it easier to prevent and treat diseases. It also, in her estimation, made it easier to predict costs since insurers and medical experts knew what to expect.

On the surface, this makes a great deal of sense. I threw this out for discussion with friends and two pro-Obamacare Democrats were quick to dismiss the idea as nonsense.

What say all of you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I guess she hasn't noticed how the face of Europe is changing, so there will soon be a plethora of stats to check her hypothesis. However, I do think she's over-generalizing and I second Sebell - results are the only stat that counts...

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

I guess she hasn't noticed how the face of Europe is changing, so there will soon be a plethora of stats to check her hypothesis. However, I do think she's over-generalizing and I second Sebell - results are the only stat that counts...

You mean the hybrid babies thanks to the raping ways of their new guests?

 

[TIDE-HSV]

You mean the hybrid babies thanks to the raping ways of their new guests?

Well that, but also just treating different-colored faces - like around here...

 

[81usaf92]

The only real reason we don't and wont have European health care is because we are the hegemonic power in the world. Which equates to massive military spending. No other European country comes even remotely close. Yeah Bernie tried to convince his followers that the fat cats up top need to pay up, but even if they went to 90% we still wouldn't have universal healthcare. So until we abandon the military industry then its highly unlikely we find a much better alternative to healthcare than Obamacare.

 

[uafanataum]

You are certain that if we upped the top earners in the country to 90% tax we would not be able to afford universal health care? I am completely against that idea but disagree that our government would still be broke.

 

[81usaf92]

You are certain that if we upped the top earners in the country to 90% tax we would not be able to afford universal health care? I am completely against that idea but disagree that our government would still be broke.

Without massive cuts in military spending its doubtful that single payer health care is a sure thing. We spend over 600 billion dollars on the military. The UK 59 billion, France 59 billion, and Germany 47. There is a lot more money to go towards healthcare in those countries because of it.

 

[uafanataum]

Without massive cuts in military spending its doubtful that single payer health care is a sure thing. We spend over 600 billion dollars on the military. The UK 59 billion, France 59 billion, and Germany 47. There is a lot more money to go towards healthcare in those countries because of it.

The military is the largest draw on " discretionary" spending true. However, the largest draw on overall spending is "mamdatory" spending. Personally I think alot of mandatory spending is not mandatory. Though I will agree that alot of money on the military is uses inefficiently, people that ask why we should have the most powerful military in the world need to learn the history of some of these eastern bloc countries. We do not want those people to be the most powerful.

 

[Elefantman]

So I'm sitting at the eye doctor a few months back, and the doc starts to opine about why European style health care won't in the US. One of her primary reasons was that the genetic homogeneity in most European countries, particularly Scandinavia, made it easier to prevent and treat diseases. It also, in her estimation, made it easier to predict costs since insurers and medical experts knew what to expect.

On the surface, this makes a great deal of sense. I threw this out for discussion with friends and two pro-Obamacare Democrats were quick to dismiss the idea as nonsense.

What say all of you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If the doc's premious is correct, how does Japan compare to europe when it comes to health care?

 

[Tide1986]

All I know is that we spend more money with poorer results.

Healthcare doesn't necessarily change lifestyles.