ChaoticMusings

Maddog · Go Outside

RE: Maddog's health, fitness and longevity thread..

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
MD,the New York Times review of Sicko is far more positive and whilst it admits Moore is theatrical it certainly does not deny his claims. The Guardian is a UK newspaper which accepts our healthcare may not be perfect but reminds us when compared to the corruption of American healthcare insurance we should count our blessings. This film was cited as Moore's most superior film here and across the pond. Why did you cherry pick a bitterly biased review rather than say, the New York Times which is an American source with a far more nuanced and accurate take on Sicko? It is not your fault that American health insurance companies are corrupt anymore than it is our fault the Tories woefully delibrately underfunded the NHS leaving it a much more flawed system. But at least in the UK we are not in denial about our health service.
OK, take the NY Times version of Moore' 20 yearly old movie..

Do you remember a chart I posted a year or so ago?

It compared the UK, the US and various other countries, detailing the way the countries performed and how satisfied people were with their countries medical services overall.

The US came last (10th) I think the UK came in 2nd....I will try and find the chart , I think it was done in 2022.

People do die here waiting for a hospital bed...how many people die in the US because they can't afford adequate medical insurance?

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Here is a similar chart.
It makes interesting reading.

Key Findings: The top three countries are Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, although differences in overall performance between most countries are relatively small. The only clear outlier is the U.S., where health system performance is dramatically lower.
Conclusion: The U.S. continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its health care sector. While the other nine countries differ in the details of their systems and in their performance on domains, unlike the U.S., they all have found a way to meet their residents’ most basic health care needs, including universal coverage.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024

Date: Jun 18 2:15 PM, 2025

Thankyou for posting that Syl, it makes for interesting reading and is accurate about the bleak reality of American health care. I feel Maddog takes it personally when this topic is broached as if he created the corrupt system himself! The reason american healthcare is by far the worst is it is treated like a business. If your health depends on how rich you are then obviously the poorer in society will get ill and have no way of getting better. That is simply inhumane. People die because they are not rich enough to live which I suspect the American government wants so they don't have to give benefits or aid to people in poverty, whom they view as worthless, an underclass who are merely a drain on resources. Maddog says the poor have to be treated if they turn up at hospital but they are then billed thousands they can't afford to pay. I'm guessing they are then hounded with letters demanding money before the baliffs turn up. So they lose everything they own. Healthcare should never be a universal business.

Date: Jun 18 2:56 PM, 2025

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
MD,the New York Times review of Sicko is far more positive and whilst it admits Moore is theatrical it certainly does not deny his claims. The Guardian is a UK newspaper which accepts our healthcare may not be perfect but reminds us when compared to the corruption of American healthcare insurance we should count our blessings. This film was cited as Moore's most superior film here and across the pond. Why did you cherry pick a bitterly biased review rather than say, the New York Times which is an American source with a far more nuanced and accurate take on Sicko? It is not your fault that American health insurance companies are corrupt anymore than it is our fault the Tories woefully delibrately underfunded the NHS leaving it a much more flawed system. But at least in the UK we are not in denial about our health service.
OK, take the NY Times version of Moore' 20 yearly old movie..
Do you remember a chart I posted a year or so ago?
It compared the UK, the US and various other countries, detailing the way the countries performed and how satisfied people were with their countries medical services overall.
The US came last (10th) I think the UK came in 2nd....I will try and find the chart , I think it was done in 2022.
People do die here waiting for a hospital bed...how many people die in the US because they can't afford adequate medical insurance?

Rather pointless I feel. iirc I posted similar links and snippets a short while ago, even statistics from WHO, all fell on deaf ears.

It seems the reasons we support the NHS is down to “brainwashing” and the latest “The NHS is revered and worshiped in the UK. It always will be. Brits will bitch and moan, but it's not going anywhere or getting much better..There is something in the British mind set of suffering together..” is a hoot

There was a poster on DS (I won’t name her) who was rabid in decrying the NHS (yes, another Yank). Incessantly ‘educating” us Brits on the superior American medical care we were all missing out on and that we were all so used to the lousy NHS that we didn’t know any different. The almighty dollar and all that.

At least I know if I was hospitalised today I wouldn’t have to worry about keeping the roof over my head tomorrow.

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
MD,the New York Times review of Sicko is far more positive and whilst it admits Moore is theatrical it certainly does not deny his claims. The Guardian is a UK newspaper which accepts our healthcare may not be perfect but reminds us when compared to the corruption of American healthcare insurance we should count our blessings. This film was cited as Moore's most superior film here and across the pond. Why did you cherry pick a bitterly biased review rather than say, the New York Times which is an American source with a far more nuanced and accurate take on Sicko? It is not your fault that American health insurance companies are corrupt anymore than it is our fault the Tories woefully delibrately underfunded the NHS leaving it a much more flawed system. But at least in the UK we are not in denial about our health service.
OK, take the NY Times version of Moore' 20 yearly old movie..
Do you remember a chart I posted a year or so ago?
It compared the UK, the US and various other countries, detailing the way the countries performed and how satisfied people were with their countries medical services overall.
The US came last (10th) I think the UK came in 2nd....I will try and find the chart , I think it was done in 2022.
People do die here waiting for a hospital bed...how many people die in the US because they can't afford adequate medical insurance?

I would say very few. For starters it's illegal to deny life saving care to someone..

Second, the poor are covered by Medicare. Folks making more moderate incomes like say $50K per year or less have their insurance premiums subsidized.

If you go without insurance now, it's mostly because you would rather spend the money on something else..

And the exact same thing would happen in the UK if NI was made optional. There would be millions of Brits, especially young healthy ones, that would spend the money elsewhere and go without coverage..

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Here is a similar chart.
It makes interesting reading.

Key Findings: The top three countries are Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, although differences in overall performance between most countries are relatively small. The only clear outlier is the U.S., where health system performance is dramatically lower.
Conclusion: The U.S. continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its health care sector. While the other nine countries differ in the details of their systems and in their performance on domains, unlike the U.S., they all have found a way to meet their residents’ most basic health care needs, including universal coverage.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024

That's been said a dozen times.

Basically, the government doesn't universally cover everyone here and our private system is the most expensive on the planet.

I've never disputed either of those.

Date: Jun 18 4:24 PM, 2025

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
MD,the New York Times review of Sicko is far more positive and whilst it admits Moore is theatrical it certainly does not deny his claims. The Guardian is a UK newspaper which accepts our healthcare may not be perfect but reminds us when compared to the corruption of American healthcare insurance we should count our blessings. This film was cited as Moore's most superior film here and across the pond. Why did you cherry pick a bitterly biased review rather than say, the New York Times which is an American source with a far more nuanced and accurate take on Sicko? It is not your fault that American health insurance companies are corrupt anymore than it is our fault the Tories woefully delibrately underfunded the NHS leaving it a much more flawed system. But at least in the UK we are not in denial about our health service.
OK, take the NY Times version of Moore' 20 yearly old movie..
Do you remember a chart I posted a year or so ago?
It compared the UK, the US and various other countries, detailing the way the countries performed and how satisfied people were with their countries medical services overall.
The US came last (10th) I think the UK came in 2nd....I will try and find the chart , I think it was done in 2022.
People do die here waiting for a hospital bed...how many people die in the US because they can't afford adequate medical insurance?

I would say very few. For starters it's illegal to deny life saving care to someone..

Second, the poor are covered by Medicare. Folks making more moderate incomes like say $50K per year or less have their insurance premiums subsidized.

If you go without insurance now, it's mostly because you would rather spend the money on something else..

And the exact same thing would happen in the UK if NI was made optional. There would be millions of Brits, especially young healthy ones, that would spend the money elsewhere and go without coverage..

Like food and rent you mean?

Maddog · Go Outside

Anonymous wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
MD,the New York Times review of Sicko is far more positive and whilst it admits Moore is theatrical it certainly does not deny his claims. The Guardian is a UK newspaper which accepts our healthcare may not be perfect but reminds us when compared to the corruption of American healthcare insurance we should count our blessings. This film was cited as Moore's most superior film here and across the pond. Why did you cherry pick a bitterly biased review rather than say, the New York Times which is an American source with a far more nuanced and accurate take on Sicko? It is not your fault that American health insurance companies are corrupt anymore than it is our fault the Tories woefully delibrately underfunded the NHS leaving it a much more flawed system. But at least in the UK we are not in denial about our health service.
OK, take the NY Times version of Moore' 20 yearly old movie..
Do you remember a chart I posted a year or so ago?
It compared the UK, the US and various other countries, detailing the way the countries performed and how satisfied people were with their countries medical services overall.
The US came last (10th) I think the UK came in 2nd....I will try and find the chart , I think it was done in 2022.
People do die here waiting for a hospital bed...how many people die in the US because they can't afford adequate medical insurance?

I would say very few. For starters it's illegal to deny life saving care to someone..

Second, the poor are covered by Medicare. Folks making more moderate incomes like say $50K per year or less have their insurance premiums subsidized.

If you go without insurance now, it's mostly because you would rather spend the money on something else..

And the exact same thing would happen in the UK if NI was made optional. There would be millions of Brits, especially young healthy ones, that would spend the money elsewhere and go without coverage..
Like food and rent you mean?

Possibly. If you prefer to live in a very large place and eat well, one could do that. Or take nice trips, drive a Corvette or snort cocaine.

Do you thinks someone making $4,000 per month can afford $250 per month for health insurance?

Do you think they should be forced to buy it?.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Here is a similar chart.
It makes interesting reading.

Key Findings: The top three countries are Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, although differences in overall performance between most countries are relatively small. The only clear outlier is the U.S., where health system performance is dramatically lower.
Conclusion: The U.S. continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its health care sector. While the other nine countries differ in the details of their systems and in their performance on domains, unlike the U.S., they all have found a way to meet their residents’ most basic health care needs, including universal coverage.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024
That's been said a dozen times.

Basically, the government doesn't universally cover everyone here and our private system is the most expensive on the planet.

I've never disputed either of those.

In most modern societies, there are rich and poor. Obviously the rich can pay for whatever they want, the poor get their benefits. Here if people are poorly paid, unemployed, etc...they can claim Universal Credit, which opens up lots of other benefits, so they can end up a lot better off than people who's income is above the claim limit.

I imagine in America, there are millions of families in the exact same position. Earning too much to be allowed free medicines, treatment, ops, etc, but not enough to cover their insurance.

Here, rich, poor, in between, people know when they need it they can get free healthcare without worrying about getting into debt.

It's not that Brits are brainwashed into believing the NHS is great...it is, with all it's faults, actually mostly brilliant when people are in need of it.

Date: Jun 18 5:20 PM, 2025

Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
MD,the New York Times review of Sicko is far more positive and whilst it admits Moore is theatrical it certainly does not deny his claims. The Guardian is a UK newspaper which accepts our healthcare may not be perfect but reminds us when compared to the corruption of American healthcare insurance we should count our blessings. This film was cited as Moore's most superior film here and across the pond. Why did you cherry pick a bitterly biased review rather than say, the New York Times which is an American source with a far more nuanced and accurate take on Sicko? It is not your fault that American health insurance companies are corrupt anymore than it is our fault the Tories woefully delibrately underfunded the NHS leaving it a much more flawed system. But at least in the UK we are not in denial about our health service.
OK, take the NY Times version of Moore' 20 yearly old movie..
Do you remember a chart I posted a year or so ago?
It compared the UK, the US and various other countries, detailing the way the countries performed and how satisfied people were with their countries medical services overall.
The US came last (10th) I think the UK came in 2nd....I will try and find the chart , I think it was done in 2022.
People do die here waiting for a hospital bed...how many people die in the US because they can't afford adequate medical insurance?

I would say very few. For starters it's illegal to deny life saving care to someone..

Second, the poor are covered by Medicare. Folks making more moderate incomes like say $50K per year or less have their insurance premiums subsidized.

If you go without insurance now, it's mostly because you would rather spend the money on something else..

And the exact same thing would happen in the UK if NI was made optional. There would be millions of Brits, especially young healthy ones, that would spend the money elsewhere and go without coverage..
Like food and rent you mean?
Possibly. If you prefer to live in a very large place and eat well, one could do that. Or take nice trips, drive a Corvette or snort cocaine.

Do you thinks someone making $4,000 per month can afford $250 per month for health insurance?

Do you think they should be forced to buy it?.

Whoosh…point being many don’t have the luxury of taking out health insurance when struggling to put food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads.

The smugness of people who can afford all three is repugnant.

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Here is a similar chart.
It makes interesting reading.

Key Findings: The top three countries are Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, although differences in overall performance between most countries are relatively small. The only clear outlier is the U.S., where health system performance is dramatically lower.
Conclusion: The U.S. continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its health care sector. While the other nine countries differ in the details of their systems and in their performance on domains, unlike the U.S., they all have found a way to meet their residents’ most basic health care needs, including universal coverage.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024
That's been said a dozen times.

Basically, the government doesn't universally cover everyone here and our private system is the most expensive on the planet.

I've never disputed either of those.
In most modern societies, there are rich and poor. Obviously the rich can pay for whatever they want, the poor get their benefits. Here if people are poorly paid, unemployed, etc...they can claim Universal Credit, which opens up lots of other benefits, so they can end up a lot better off than people who's income is above the claim limit.
I imagine in America, there are millions of families in the exact same position. Earning too much to be allowed free medicines, treatment, ops, etc, but not enough to cover their insurance.
Here, rich, poor, in between, people know when they need it they can get free healthcare without worrying about getting into debt.
It's not that Brits are brainwashed into believing the NHS is great...it is, with all it's faults, actually mostly brilliant when people are in need of it.

You imagine wrong.

How many times do I need to say insurance for the very people you mention is subsidized.

How do people afford NI in the UK if they have modest means?

Maddog · Go Outside

"In general, US cancer patients have higher five-year survival rates compared to their UK counterparts, particularly for less survivable cancers. For example, a Cancer Research UK study found that US patients with less survivable cancers had higher five-year survival rates compared to the UK."

🤷

Date: Jun 18 5:38 PM, 2025

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Here is a similar chart.
It makes interesting reading.

Key Findings: The top three countries are Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, although differences in overall performance between most countries are relatively small. The only clear outlier is the U.S., where health system performance is dramatically lower.
Conclusion: The U.S. continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its health care sector. While the other nine countries differ in the details of their systems and in their performance on domains, unlike the U.S., they all have found a way to meet their residents’ most basic health care needs, including universal coverage.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024
That's been said a dozen times.

Basically, the government doesn't universally cover everyone here and our private system is the most expensive on the planet.

I've never disputed either of those.
In most modern societies, there are rich and poor. Obviously the rich can pay for whatever they want, the poor get their benefits. Here if people are poorly paid, unemployed, etc...they can claim Universal Credit, which opens up lots of other benefits, so they can end up a lot better off than people who's income is above the claim limit.
I imagine in America, there are millions of families in the exact same position. Earning too much to be allowed free medicines, treatment, ops, etc, but not enough to cover their insurance.
Here, rich, poor, in between, people know when they need it they can get free healthcare without worrying about getting into debt.
It's not that Brits are brainwashed into believing the NHS is great...it is, with all it's faults, actually mostly brilliant when people are in need of it.
You imagine wrong.

How many times do I need to say insurance for the very people you mention is subsidized.

How do people afford NI in the UK if they have modest means?

So how come there are numerous reports/articles claiming people are dying because they can’t afford doctors and hospital consultations and treatments, can’t afford prescriptions if it’s all subsidised and everyone gets medical care?

At least the faults of the NHS here are pointed out, we’re not burying our heads in the sand. Your continual denying reality of US medical services is embarrassing.

NI contributions are paid through benefits by the Govt to the Govt. If you work NI is automatically deducted from salaries.

Syl · FIRM BUT FAIR.

Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Here is a similar chart.
It makes interesting reading.

Key Findings: The top three countries are Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, although differences in overall performance between most countries are relatively small. The only clear outlier is the U.S., where health system performance is dramatically lower.
Conclusion: The U.S. continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its health care sector. While the other nine countries differ in the details of their systems and in their performance on domains, unlike the U.S., they all have found a way to meet their residents’ most basic health care needs, including universal coverage.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024
That's been said a dozen times.

Basically, the government doesn't universally cover everyone here and our private system is the most expensive on the planet.

I've never disputed either of those.
In most modern societies, there are rich and poor. Obviously the rich can pay for whatever they want, the poor get their benefits. Here if people are poorly paid, unemployed, etc... they can claim Universal Credit, which opens up lots of other benefits, so they can end up a lot better off than people who's income is above the claim limit.
I imagine in America, there are millions of families in the exact same position. Earning too much to be allowed free medicines, treatment, ops, etc, but not enough to cover their insurance.
Here, rich, poor, in between, people know when they need it they can get free healthcare without worrying about getting into debt.
It's not that Brits are brainwashed into believing the NHS is great... it is, with all it's faults, actually mostly brilliant when people are in need of it.
You imagine wrong.

How many times do I need to say insurance for the very people you mention is subsidized.

How do people afford NI in the UK if they have modest means?

I don't think I imagine wrong. You can find many articles that will give statistics of people in the Stares who die because they are afraid to seek medical assistance because they either can't afford insurance, even subsidised.

You may even know some of them...

Texas has the largest population of uninsured nonelderly adults (18.9%) and Massachusetts has the lowest (2.8%).¹

Health Insurance S+F 2025 – Forbes Advisor

Date: Jun 18 5:53 PM, 2025

Maddog wrote:
"In general, US cancer patients have higher five-year survival rates compared to their UK counterparts, particularly for less survivable cancers. For example, a Cancer Research UK study found that US patients with less survivable cancers had higher five-year survival rates compared to the UK."

🤷

Yes you posted that to somehow justify official health tables which show the reality of the US health system. Have you bothered to read all the other links that have been posted or are you going to just rely on this one claim?

Maddog · Go Outside

Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Syl wrote:
Here is a similar chart.
It makes interesting reading.

Key Findings: The top three countries are Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, although differences in overall performance between most countries are relatively small. The only clear outlier is the U.S., where health system performance is dramatically lower.
Conclusion: The U.S. continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its health care sector. While the other nine countries differ in the details of their systems and in their performance on domains, unlike the U.S., they all have found a way to meet their residents’ most basic health care needs, including universal coverage.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2024/sep/mirror-mirror-2024
That's been said a dozen times.

Basically, the government doesn't universally cover everyone here and our private system is the most expensive on the planet.

I've never disputed either of those.
In most modern societies, there are rich and poor. Obviously the rich can pay for whatever they want, the poor get their benefits. Here if people are poorly paid, unemployed, etc... they can claim Universal Credit, which opens up lots of other benefits, so they can end up a lot better off than people who's income is above the claim limit.
I imagine in America, there are millions of families in the exact same position. Earning too much to be allowed free medicines, treatment, ops, etc, but not enough to cover their insurance.
Here, rich, poor, in between, people know when they need it they can get free healthcare without worrying about getting into debt.
It's not that Brits are brainwashed into believing the NHS is great... it is, with all it's faults, actually mostly brilliant when people are in need of it.
You imagine wrong.

How many times do I need to say insurance for the very people you mention is subsidized.

How do people afford NI in the UK if they have modest means?

I don't think I imagine wrong. You can find many articles that will give statistics of people in the Stares who die because they are afraid to seek medical assistance because they either can't afford insurance, even subsidised.
You may even know some of them...
Texas has the largest population of uninsured nonelderly adults (18.9%) and Massachusetts has the lowest (2.8%).¹

Health Insurance S+F 2025 – Forbes Advisor

Why do you think there are so many more here than in Massachusetts?

You think it's because of cost.

I'll guarantee you we have the one of the highest rates of uninsured motorists too..

Again, you are confusing a decision not to purchase a product with the inability to do so..

And as soon as someone is caught without that product they scream they can't afford it..

But they can afford McDonald's and $200 sneakers..🤷

Maddog · Go Outside

Maddog wrote:
"In general, US cancer patients have higher five-year survival rates compared to their UK counterparts, particularly for less survivable cancers. For example, a Cancer Research UK study found that US patients with less survivable cancers had higher five-year survival rates compared to the UK."

🤷

How does this happen in a country where folks can't get care?.

Date: Jun 18 7:21 PM, 2025

Maddog wrote:
Maddog wrote:
"In general, US cancer patients have higher five-year survival rates compared to their UK counterparts, particularly for less survivable cancers. For example, a Cancer Research UK study found that US patients with less survivable cancers had higher five-year survival rates compared to the UK."

🤷
How does this happen in a country where folks can't get care?.

is this for non health insurance holders or owners of? - As it is it’s just a general statistic to me.

So you can vouch that every person without health insurance gets cancer treatment? Who pays for their room and treatments if they have no insurance? Who pays for any needed follow-up treatment and drugs? Who pays for any after care if needed?

It’s a fairly impressive statement but what about the mortality rates in other fields that have been posted about or is this all there is? It’s easy to point out one statistic whilst ignoring all the others.

Date: Jun 18 8:00 PM, 2025

It's a well known fact backed up by statistics that the American healthcare system is the worst in Western world for people in poverty who cannot afford insurance. Maddog I suspect knows this but since he personally doesn't have to worry about healthcare costs he wants to defend the service that he is satisfied with. Thats fine but he should admit there is a reason American healthcare is considered to be the worst for a myriad of reasons. Stubbornly ignoring the stats is irrational and means trying to engage him in debate about this will be a waste of time.