- Home
- Solano News
- US / World
- Opinion
- Living
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Business
- Obituaries
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
2,299
1,007
Editorial on health care reaches wrong conclusions
The DR editorial of Jan. 14, “US ranks low on health measures,” is to be commended for primarily using facts instead of emotion in discussing health measures. Unfortunately, its conclusions are not supported by logic and the facts provided.
The editorial factually identifies that U.S. life expectancy is the lowest of 17 nations measured, but that a U.S. citizen who reaches 75 years will outlive others. It then explains that the primary reasons for the higher mortality in U.S. citizens below age 50 are higher rates of death from violence, traffic accidents, drug overdoses, obesity, heart and lung disease and infant mortality.
The editorial does not separate that the causes of higher U.S. mortality are unrelated to health care, with the partial exception of the infants and heart and lung disease, which may be caused by personal neglect or the health system. It does not emphasize that older people seek health care and receive its benefits. It overlooks that most medical advances for the world, particularly in pharmaceuticals, during the past 50 years have been developed in the U.S.
The editorial then concludes that the key reasons for mortality differences are the lack of national health coverage, higher monetary cost and difficulty in accessing regular care. Really? Socialized health care will not cure the aforementioned problems and hospitals are required by law to provide free service to anyone who seeks it. Accessibility is not a reason, but that free service is the cause of increased cost for paying recipients since the hospitals and doctors must transfer the “free” costs to continue in business.
Summary: U.S. longevity is an education problem, not a health care problem.
Earl Heal
Vacaville
Discussion | 3 comments
The Daily Republic does not necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy
Recent Posts
- Applications for US unemployment aid fall to 340K
- Why worry? Less aid by Fed would point to recovery
- 87-year-old woman loses to Trump in civil case
- Stocks edge lower as investors reassess Fed fears
- SCC graduation ceremony
- Charles E. Brooks Jr.
- Top stars square off for summer tour dollars
- Plan promotes walking to school
- Israel says Iran unaffected by world pressure
- Clashes in Lebanon feed fear of Syria spillover
- Military calls UK attack victim a model soldier
- Q&A: What is known about London attack
- Health exchange details emerging for Solano
- Latest deadly tornado tests Oklahoma town’s mettle
Danny BuntinJanuary 18, 2013 - 8:59 am
Your statement "hospitals are required by law to provide free service to anyone who seeks it". Really, in a emergency yes. But they are only required to stabilize the patient. They are not required to do spit in a non-emergency situation. If you believe what you wrote, then I understand how you came to this conclusion. Unfortunately you are not correct in what you said, so your conclusion fails miserably.
Reply |MarkJanuary 18, 2013 - 4:15 pm
No one in the US is denied medical care, whether they can pay for it or not. But medical care and health care are not the same thing. Neither medical care or health care is going to decrease the rate of mortality for things such as violence, traffic accidents, drug overdoses and better health care may or may not decrease the the rates of mortality for things such as heart and lung disease and infant mortality. Without knowing exactly why the people died (did they have good health care and they died anyway? what percentage of people that died had health care etc etc) with these afflictions you can't say whether things will improve. I do now that my health care premiums have skyrocketed in the last year or so. So much for the new health care plan saving me money.
Reply |The SugarJarJanuary 18, 2013 - 7:20 pm
very misleading. hospitals do try and collect when medical services are provided. When they cannot collect, collection services purchase the debt, and attempt collection. so while a person might not be refused basic emergency medical services, their credit and possibly their lives will be wrecked if they cannot pay. I know people personally who cannot afford medical treatment, and who would forgo emergency treatment because they cannot pay and will, in all likelihood, die rather than take what they cannot pay for. The emergency treatment and follow up one receives WHEN insurance is part of the deal and that received when it is not is NOT equal.
Reply |