50 U.S. Health Care Statistics That Will Absolutely Astonish You

page: 1
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join


posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   

than we do. Residents of Cuba have a lower infant mortality rate than we do. We are the most medicated population on the planet and yet we are also one of the sickest.


Do you hear that giant sucking sound? It's the insurance company. They disgust me.

I thought it was kind of odd how a developed nation like the U.S. continue to get sicker while medical knowledge was increasingly getting better. I think a big part that is making this country sick is the food or nutrition we are taking in considering the amount of junk food we consume. That is why I only eat raw and real food.

When it comes to the pharmaceutical industry and FDA, I don't trust the FDA at all. I know they have been colluding and acting as a front for the industry. That is why I decided to become my own doctor instead. I just look up and do my own research on illnesses.


[#1 What the United States spent on health care in 2009 was greater than the entire GDP of Great Britain.
#2 According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, health care costs accounted for just 9.5% of all personal consumption back in 1980. Today they account for approximately 16.3%.
[#9 Even as the rest of the country struggled with a deep recession, U.S. health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent during 2009 alone.
#33 today, people living in Puerto Rico have a greater life expectancy than people living in the United States do.
#49 If the U.S. health care system was a country, it would be the 6th largest economy in the entire world.



www.blacklistednews.com...
edit on 30-6-2011 by MIDNIGHTSUN because: (no reason given)
edit on Thu Jun 30 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: shortened long quote



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
These are interesting statistics. Although, # 33 has me puzzled.

Isn't Puerto Rico a U.S. territory and the United States Congress legislates many aspects of Puerto Rican life?

Makes me think some of these statistics should be varified.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by VAPatriot
 


Puerto Rico has universal health care pay by the government, perhaps the increase in life expectancy is due to that fact, easy access to health care for free.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Anyone with even the smallest amount of neurons firing int heir brain should understand that the medical industry in the USA is a disgusting violation of human rights and abuse of capitalism. Just like the prison industry and the war industry. Pharmaceuticals are advertised like breakfast cereal on TV, for $#&*'s sake.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by VAPatriot
These are interesting statistics. Although, # 33 has me puzzled.

Isn't Puerto Rico a U.S. territory and the United States Congress legislates many aspects of Puerto Rican life?

Makes me think some of these statistics should be varified.


You can verify #33 here:

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by 0001391
 


Yes they are but do not expect the Obamacare to help regulate them, the bill has nothing specific on that and too many loopholes for them to feast on.

Just remember that it was big insurance companies the ones that redacted the final health care bill and that they were the ones that are to punish with the mandatory clause tax payer in the nation.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by MIDNIGHTSUN
 


Maybe because people in Puerto Rico don't eat three meals a day at McDonald's. In America we have great health care. My wife and I just had twins 2 weeks ago, and one of them had complications and had to be moved to the intensive care unit for a week or so, and he is great and came home 2 days ago. The nurses and doctors were amazing and very efficient. I have no complaints at all, except that a band-aid costs $4.00, but the hospital has to have some way to recover their costs when they have to provide care for the uninsured as directed by law. I hate how expensive it is, but that's why I have insurance. Health care is a private industry, and if you can't afford it then it sucks to be you. Hungry people can't walk into a restaurant and demand free food. Take the emotion out of it and it is the same thing.

Big Pharma is a big problem, and as long as fascism runs wild in DC and politicians are in bed with Big Pharma things will stay the same.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


Thanks to you and Aggie Man for the info. I was not aware of that fact.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by VAPatriot
 


Yes, I am from Puerto Rico, the health care is working well for the people, but the influx of illegals are leaching what otherwise could be a good thing for PR legal citizens, the illegals comes from other Islands in the Caribbean to take advantage of the free health care in PR, putting a burden on the tax payer.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Health in the U.S. is tricky.
Our diet sucks. There is no way around it. Unless you are growing your own (as many here are) there is no real way to know what is or is not in your food. We live in areas that hosted massive manufacturing and its inherent waste prior to regulations. The Super Fund has done some to clean up but huge parts of the country will still take decades to recover. The "Cancer Alley" of the Northeast is not only in that region of the country it is also close enough to the Uranium mining in Canada that fine particulates can become airborne and end up in that region. Naturally occuring radon, etc.
Now, as far as the actual health care goes: the rest of the developed (and a few developing) countries that offer universal healthcare could not get the results that they do without a private U.S. system. Innovation happens here. And it is expensive. The research and development costs of all the failed projects get rolled into the cost of the projects that yield results. On one level I am more than okay with that because we do get those break throughs. And, if you have a good health care plan, you can take advantage of it at a reasonable cost.
But, when those break throughs trickle overseas the U.S. consumer is already covering the cost of the research. So it is much cheaper.
Socialized medicine across the world has benefited from capitalized medicine here.
If the U.S. were to drastically change its system there would be less incentive for new development. It is at the very heart of our system that risk yields reward. But, at the same time, I don't know anyone who would really like to see someone (to make the argument as strong as possible we'll say a child) go without health care if they need it.
BUT, the costs of those in the U.S. system who get mandated care (E.R. can't turn you away, but how many people never actually pay the bill?) end up rolled into the costs of the insured. There are business involved and they have to cover their costs and turn a profit.
A nationalized payer system: the part that was left out of "ObamaCare" would stop that since everyone would be covered but other than the fact that it relates to a touch feely thing like health care such an idea is totally anathema to our system, culture, and national identity.
People who run things in other countries can't really want to see that happen either. How would they make their nationalized system work without the U.S. absorbing the research cost?
I don't know the answer.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
The FDA and the USDA are the two biggest criminal organizations formed by the US Government. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that nature intended us to eat a certain way. When you deviate from that you get disease and obesity. Processed foods is what causes it. Did you know that prior to 1920 there were fewer than 3,000 deaths from coronary heart disease per year? Today it is over 1/2 a million! Processed foods came onto the scene in the 1930's. Coincidence? I don't think so. It's a big racket. Feed the people foods that make them feel good, but also makes them want more of it so they buy more. Added benefit is they get more diseases and thus enhances the medial and pharma industry as well as health insurance companies. If you ate like they did prior to 1930 you would have virtually no medical bills other than accidents. You would be healthier, leaner and much more energetic. Keep falling for the "new" advice on nutrition that comes out every 2 or 3 years and you are sealing your death warrant. There's a reason why they call it a diet. People die from it!



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by haarvik
 


That's true, and when you add into the equation the added stress, two income 50+ hour work weeks, 5 hours of TV (couch potato lifestyle), and chemical laced environments (food, air, water and land) this is what you end up with. The US also has the highest % of mental health patients in the world, so something is not right.

I work in a hosptial and I see problems with it all the time. If you have an intensive emergency, then hospital are a good place to go, but for everything else you are most likely better off staying home. Hopefully people will take responsibility for their own health choices such as what they eat, how they regulate their stress, and how much exercise they get. Paying attention to those three things would do wonders for a person's health.
edit on 30-6-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
All you have to do is to look at how the Amish live/eat. Their diets are high in saturated fats, and high in red meat consumption. Yet they do not have a high level of CHD. They rarely need a doctor. I grew up around them, and my mother was raised Wesleyan Methodist which is only a couple steps above Amish. We always ate whole foods, fresh fruits/vegetables. Lots of meat. Soups made with lard and all sorts of breads basted with bacon grease. So by "accepted" nutritional practices, I should be disease ridden with CHD and high cholesterol. Yet I have neither. I have recently gone back to that style of eating, and I rarely get sick. Usually a cold that only lasts a couple days. So take it for what it's worth, but you truly are what you eat.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by haarvik
 



Again, that goes more into the proof that diet alone does not contribute to CHD. Amish lifestyle, though certainly not stress free, isn't exactly the deadline, traffic jam, college loan, credit card payment, clusterfck that we live in now. They eat lots of whole foods like you said, usually live in rural vegetative environments, eat mostly organic foods, and aren't surrounded by electronics (which studies show might have an effect on health). I think it's a combination of differing factors that lead to CHF and other diseases. Stress is a big one, which studies have shown ages a person along with lowering their immune system. Exercise, or better put, activity promotes well being and the Amish are hands on. Things like sleep also play a factor. Our whole western model of life is literally killing us, yet people defend it like it's the only choice (or the "best choice") available which is nonsense.
edit on 30-6-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by watcher3339
Health in the U.S. is tricky.
Our diet sucks. There is no way around it. Unless you are growing your own (as many here are) there is no real way to know what is or is not in your food. We live in areas that hosted massive manufacturing and its inherent waste prior to regulations. The Super Fund has done some to clean up but huge parts of the country will still take decades to recover. The "Cancer Alley" of the Northeast is not only in that region of the country it is also close enough to the Uranium mining in Canada that fine particulates can become airborne and end up in that region. Naturally occuring radon, etc.
Now, as far as the actual health care goes: the rest of the developed (and a few developing) countries that offer universal healthcare could not get the results that they do without a private U.S. system. Innovation happens here. And it is expensive. The research and development costs of all the failed projects get rolled into the cost of the projects that yield results. On one level I am more than okay with that because we do get those break throughs. And, if you have a good health care plan, you can take advantage of it at a reasonable cost.
But, when those break throughs trickle overseas the U.S. consumer is already covering the cost of the research. So it is much cheaper.
Socialized medicine across the world has benefited from capitalized medicine here.
If the U.S. were to drastically change its system there would be less incentive for new development. It is at the very heart of our system that risk yields reward. But, at the same time, I don't know anyone who would really like to see someone (to make the argument as strong as possible we'll say a child) go without health care if they need it.
BUT, the costs of those in the U.S. system who get mandated care (E.R. can't turn you away, but how many people never actually pay the bill?) end up rolled into the costs of the insured. There are business involved and they have to cover their costs and turn a profit.
A nationalized payer system: the part that was left out of "ObamaCare" would stop that since everyone would be covered but other than the fact that it relates to a touch feely thing like health care such an idea is totally anathema to our system, culture, and national identity.
People who run things in other countries can't really want to see that happen either. How would they make their nationalized system work without the U.S. absorbing the research cost?
I don't know the answer.


What is all this "innovation" and "development" you are talking about? The innovation of hundreds of new wonder drugs every year, untested yet foisted on an unsuspecting populace? The development of new ways to gouge you on the billing, and mandatory ripoff insurance?

Humans have not changed, nor have the things that make you healthy. As posted above, what has changed is the DIET. You are all eating poison all the time.

Remember YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT. This could not be more true. Your entire body is made out of stuff you ate. So if all you eat is McDonalds and other garbage, YOUR BODY IS MADE OF GARBAGE. Chances are you will get sick all the time. But just pop your wonder drugs that your local pusher, I mean doctor, pushed on you and you will be fine!



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by CaptChaos

Originally posted by watcher3339
Now, as far as the actual health care goes: the rest of the developed (and a few developing) countries that offer universal healthcare could not get the results that they do without a private U.S. system. Innovation happens here. And it is expensive. The research and development costs of all the failed projects get rolled into the cost of the projects that yield results. On one level I am more than okay with that because we do get those break throughs. And, if you have a good health care plan, you can take advantage of it at a reasonable cost.
But, when those break throughs trickle overseas the U.S. consumer is already covering the cost of the research. So it is much cheaper.
A nationalized payer system: the part that was left out of "ObamaCare" would stop that since everyone would be covered but other than the fact that it relates to a touch feely thing like health care such an idea is totally anathema to our system, culture, and national identity.
People who run things in other countries can't really want to see that happen either. How would they make their nationalized system work without the U.S. absorbing the research cost?
I don't know the answer.


What is all this "innovation" and "development" you are talking about? The innovation of hundreds of new wonder drugs every year, untested yet foisted on an unsuspecting populace? The development of new ways to gouge you on the billing, and mandatory ripoff insurance?

Humans have not changed, nor have the things that make you healthy. As posted above, what has changed is the DIET. You are all eating poison all the time.

Remember YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT. This could not be more true. Your entire body is made out of stuff you ate. So if all you eat is McDonalds and other garbage, YOUR BODY IS MADE OF GARBAGE. Chances are you will get sick all the time. But just pop your wonder drugs that your local pusher, I mean doctor, pushed on you and you will be fine!


Oh let's be realistic. You want to talk about food, I addressed that and don't entirely disagree with you. But your head is truly in the sand if you think that is all that there is to life. Is it a part of it? Yes. Certainly. I am an Atkins fan and he said much of what you did and was ridiculed for it.
However, there are other things that make you sick. There are injuries, broken bones, genetic diseases and disorders. And the U.S. has long led the way in medical intervention and then the rest of the world copies what we have done. I do believe that vaccines prevent disease. Yes, they sometimes are catastrophic. That frightens me. But on the whole, "herd" immunity is a good thing.
Machines are a part of innovation too. There are ways to improve eyesight, hearing. There are ways to regain some of what has been lost. There is surgery to repair and, when needed remove. There are technology innovations to assist in specific diagnosis. There is study of disease and ways to treat and eliminate it.
If you don't believe in any of those things. If you find all of them worthless, well, you are certainly enttitled to your opinion, but quite frankly, that would put us in such different places on the issue of medicine in general that there would be no point in our interacting further.
When someone you love is saved by such technology you might gain respect for it.
I have already experienced that and so I already have that respect.



posted on Jun, 30 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Isn´t the very first point total nonsense ?



#1 What the United States spent on health care in 2009 was greater than the entire GDP of Great Britain.


The gdp of GB 2009 was 1.565.750.000.000
edit on 30-6-2011 by AnnoyingOrangeX because: (no reason given)


edit: ok lol ...I guess I am wrong and this insane number is realy true ...wow pharma rapes USA big time oO

edit on 30-6-2011 by AnnoyingOrangeX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Not saying I disagree but did you know:




two out of three statistics are made up on the spot?





posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
Its cheaper and better to cure someone and keep them healthy when a person has universal health care by the government.
When corporations run health care, obviously its more beneficial to keep people sick and in perpetual treatment.

I am always astounded that 33% (roundabout) of our country demands corporations run the whole mess (whom have a vested interest in keeping you strung along) verses government (that has a vested interest in keeping you healthy and working).

Philosophy of self destruction





top topics
 
19
<<   2 >>

log in

join