Dude, what, no. The U.S. doesn't even get near the top nations here, its healthcare system is happy if it's even considered 1st World. Look at South Korea, Scandinavians, look at the Swiss death rate (they have a surplus of ventilators). Italy is widely seen as having a superior health care system to the U.S. Now, we do have the most expensive health care system. So top there, yeah.
This is an interesting question. I started to ponder about it. Possibilities: 1. In the beginning the carriers didn't come into contact with lots of people. 2. They eventually did infect lots of people but those are not tested, thus they "have the normal flu". For young healthy people it is not much different. 3. The state went into a lock down (bars, etc.) fairly quickly so that stopped/slowed down the spread of the virus. 4. There might be a weaker strain there. I don't remember the exact timeline but Seattle was the first to limit people's movement, etc.
All I see is a bunch of people using this event to advocate their political beliefs about how healthcare is run... Centralized anything becomes fragile... If anyone were to read this thread...what would be your prognosis on the direction of the market over the next 2 weeks.. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the bill market is OVER...
5. Corona virus mutate and evolve, oftentimes the mutations are very different from the earlier forms, making it harder to detect over time.
There's a reason: at least semi-centralized approach to healthcare solves many problems that even dirt cheap private insurance doesn't solve. Most important, the problem of layoffs. Let's argue for state's rights and say every state can run their own state insurance in order to keep the federal government out of it. The government run systems of other countries are handling this better than America. At the very least we should ask why. Presently healthcare is an employee benefit. Back in the golden years when you got black lung as payment for being a good wage slave employers saught to keep employees tied down through benefits plans. These included stabilizing retirement via 401ks (something you COULD do yourself but you need an employer to do the pretax deduction), healthcare, and life insurance. Obviously many would-be entrepreneurs and small business owners chose the safety and security of an employer run plan instead of risking it on their own. Pre-Obama you really didn't have a choice if you had any form of even mild chronic illness (think mild asthma or if you're older, hypertension). The employer-employee contract stifles small business. By removing the employer-employee contract requirement associated with healthcare you achieve far better rates of cure. By using some tax dollars at the state level (of which many of us pay for very little reason) we can get healthcare to everyone, reduce the burden on the medical system (hospitals end up writing off something like 60% of all uninsured medical debt), and improve the health of our society and the most vulnerable (elderly and chronically ill who cannot otherwise be insured reasonably). The problem of "the ERs are overcrowded" can be solved via policy. Right now ERs are crowded and allegedly we have the best health insurance on the planet! I have many friends in the medical field that complain ad nauseum about all of the uninsured and underinsured showing up to the ER for the sniffles since they have no primary provider. How, pray tell, does this change if we moved to a more centralized system? Perhaps more quick care clinics can open and people will use those instead! Some work in this respect has been done with the Walgreens and Walmart quick care type systems that are cheap and easy. But again, these are still unavailable to the would-be pensioner or fixed income person. The antiquated view of healthcare as an employee benefit must stop. We don't live in Ford's America anymore. It's not simply enough to pay your employees a mediocre wage and give them fringe benefits. The system cannot support the load it is currently under. We are the sickest society, the most at risk for chronic illness, and yet we continue to vote for politicians that support a system that only seeks to line the pocket books of insurance brokers who, acting rationally, stack their deck with only the most healthy. This is a form of catastrophic-only insurance. Catastrophic insurance does not lend itself well to solving the issue of chronic illness that plagues America or responding to novel breakouts of potentially deadly disease.
%% Maybe. I See WHO ranks them after socialist France- what an endorsement huh?? And cant help but wonder why the virus hit them so hard, 2nd after China??
%% WELL, a medical doctor, on the radio last week said the media is ''fear mongering it'' So it must still be a slow new month/election year...………………………………………………………………………….